pandaman

Voted 2 or less. I think 2 (or possibly just 1) addtional on release, with others added later as paid DLC.

Yes, I agree, having the tutorials, and whatever KSPedia equivalent there may be, available for out of game viewing/download would be very handy.

Yes, me too. I certainly don't disagree with you on any of that. The Boston Dynamics, and other similar stuff, sure is impressive and the capabilities will certainly improve. And for lightweight exploration rovers it could be the way to go. But the complexity of it would be a big concern from a reliability angle. A wheeled vehicle is so much simpler mechanically, with current tech at least. My thoughts mainly stemmed from the ATAT style walkers and 'fighting mech' concepts with their obvious vulnerability to falling over, and high profiles rendering taking cover practically impossible. Give me a nice stable, low profile, tank over a 40ft tall walker any day.

This^^ Aesthetics and 'SciFi-ness' aside, I never understood the idea that walkers were somehow better than wheels or tracks, especially for anything of any size, or carrying heavy loads.

Ahh. So it's your birthday then? And not marking some scary diagnosis or similar?

My very best wishes to you if that date has a particular significance for you... But Isn't EVERY day the anniversary of us not having passed away however many yeas ago?

Yes. Or 'flat pack' prefabricated geodesic dome kits.

Procedural/customisable sized dome (or other shaped) structures to contain a local atmosphere in places where the ambient atmosphere is either hostile or non existent, yes nice idea. But a sci-fi style 'force field' is a bit too far fetched IMO.

I've seen nothing to indicate that there are addtional delays. So sometime in 2022 seems pretty safe to me. At a guess I would put my money on comfortably before Christmas, so Sept to Nov. I don't get all the obsession with wanting a date announcement. All that does is raise expectations and risks disappointment if minor delays of a few days to a couple of weeks creep in. There is enough paranoia about delays already, and an actual date statement won't in itself guarantee anything anyway. Let them get it done and ready THEN tell us, not give a date and need to change it.

Ultimately it's all down to what type of game you want to play at that time. And what server set-ups are available. For small groups of friends etc. then it's relatively easy to arrange peaceful co-ops or war games as you wish, and to 'filter out' individuals if needed. If it's relatively open to larger numbers then the chances of the odd pr**k deciding to join in and wreck stuff, just to boost their ego and compensate for their small 'booster', is much greater. Personally I would generally avoid joining this kind of more public server, but each to their own, I can appreciate that many would enjoy it.

This ^^ sums up my thoughts pretty well. I see no place for specific 'weaponisation' parts or features in stock. The 'tools' for making weapons are already there anyway, a fuel tank is pretty much a big molotov cocktail after all, never mind all the other 'goodies' essential for a space program. If players want to do battle, either in stock or with the inevitable mods then they will, and yes it could be fun. I'm not much of a multiplayer guy anyway, but I will very likely enjoy some co-ops and quite probably the occasional battle with my kids.

'Upgrade' what's already there certainly, we've already seen some of that. I don't expect any significant additions, such as new planets or moons though, but it's not inconcievable that the odd thing might sneak in.

I do that too, I have been known to land rather further away than intended, so it help a lot with that.

One 'trick' I often use is to use landing gear instead of legs. That way I can not worry about killing all horizontal velicity (as long as I'm pointing the right way). I can also touch down a bit short and roll towards the target.

I haven't used it in a long time so I could be mistsken, but I believe KER has a 'suicide burn indicator'. This along with impact point indicators, such as in 'Trajectories' etc. Should be all the tools we need, along with appropriate tutorials, and of course practice. The best comparison I can think of IRL... Carrier pilots will train specifically fot hours on the types of aircraft they will be flying to build up familiarity with how it feels, and rehearse countless landiings. So that when it 'gets hairy' and they need to react they are prepared. In KSP we can switch between numerous, very different, types of craft in many strange environnents in a single 'session' . Practice certainly helps, and is important, but we just won't get that fine tuned familiarity.

Not in itself a silly idea, but... One big downside to just 'scaling up' is that EVERYTHING gets scaled up and can look out of proportion when a Kerbal is present. Hills would be 2.5x higher, rivers 2.5x wider etc. It could also look 'low resolution' as a result. Move 2.5x closer to your screen and you'll get the idea. To fix all that would take a LOT of work.

Essentially they are 'drag to the size and shape you want' rather than the current method of assembling them out of set prefabricated pieces.

I'm not keen on 'platform exclusives' for the sake of it. It's just marketing BS. I don't particularly like it, but I do understand that there may be techical or other reasons why all platforms can't have everything (mods being a good example).

I would imagine 'realistic looking' is pretty much guaranteed, maybe with a few familiar features thrown in. I believe the Pleiades are in the KSP 1 skybox for example. But whether they will use the actual Milky Way as the 'home' galaxy and pick locations within it for the other solar systems remains to be seen.

Everything @jimmymcgoochie said above... Plus... it's an ideal place to practice and test the game mechanics out other than just 'mucking about' on Kerbin.

I think I just wet myself... ...Ahh, no just drooling a lot.

In space no, but they have been known to spend a lot of time orbiting waiting for tranfer windows. Or 'going round again' if I time the Kerbin capture wrong. On planets, there is a subtle, and flexible, distinction between 'stranded', 'long term deployment' and 'colonisation'.

Great idea. As for a stock renaming option, I dont really see the point. Nobody afaik has complained that they can't rename the planets. And the option to name geographical features does sort of exist in KSP1 already - just add a waypoint and name it as you wish. And I expect the same function will be in KSP2 in some form.

I can just see the scenario... Jeb helps Bob to put on his magnetic boots, lets him out of the airlock and shuts the hatch - Then laughs evilly in the knowledge that it's an aluminium ship.

I understand your excitement, I share it too. But why the need for concrete dates? All that does is set you up for disappointment if it runs even a few days late, or forces a release when it's not quite ready so they can hit the deadline and/or save face. At this point I would much rather have a reassuring, but relatively vague 'don't panic, we are currently still on target to deliver this year' at most. With a date set only when they are fully ready to commit.