mcdjfp

I might be mistaken, but I suspect that the heating "model" works just fine if you stick to the expected heat shield/capsule/parachute configuration. Once you start getting fancy ( start trying to copy Space X, or anything else not anticipated by the programmers), and start trying to use non-heat shield high heat tolerant parts to shield more vulnerable parts, the less complex heating model starts showing undesired behaviors.

KSP 2 would be a perfectly acceptable early access game, but that is not what it was advertised to be. In particular I am referring to the Beta Capture images. KSP 2 is nowhere near that state, and that misrepresentation is the problem. Plus, the bugs (and other issues such as the "vessel destroyed" pop-up) get in the way of the fun

If I am not mistaken, one of the selling points of X Plane, at least for past versions, was the ability to create your own aircraft. It is a much more complex process, but I played around with a few simple designs in version 5 (I think they are on version 12 now)

He may have been Jool diving, but I regularly consider the placement of parts (and more than just occlusion) when designing my Mun/Minmus shuttles and tankers. I use aerobraking to save fuel on the leg to Kerbin. The deeper I can go without breaking stuff, the fewer passes I will need. My issue is the removal of a design constraint. Now only occluding low temperature parts will be necessary. And now that I think about it more, that might not even be necessary. If it is a simple have more cooling than the craft is receiving heating, then why not mount that temperature sensitive part where it will be exposed to reentry? I just need enough cooling somewhere on the vessel that it won't heat up.

A bit more aggressive than my fuel saving aerobraking returning from the Mun/Minmus using my passenger shuttle. Edit: Even being less aggressive I still take care to not overheat the wrong parts.

I quite frequently ended up with uneven heat distribution (careful, often muti-pass aerobraking as one example, high speed planes for another) when playing KSP 1 and I was hoping for improvements in this area, not a removal. The ability to place low temperature parts directly on the hottest part of the craft with no consequences feels like a bad lesson to teach. I was also hoping that some of this stuff could be properly moved into their own threads to better make use of modern multi-core CPUs. Seeing only 1 core under any kind of strain makes me sad.

That is how I interpret the situation based on the Developer Insight. I am just hoping I am wrong because this behavior completely fails the authentic test for me.

I have a quick question about this thermal system that isn't dealt with in the 4 examples. I have 2 parts attached to each other. Part A: Large, has a 1000 K temperature tolerance and produces a positive heat flux. Part B: Small, has a 500K temperate tolerance and is essentially static with no heat flux. Which of these 2 parts will blow up first?

The screen itself (and the very useful log information) should still exist, but what is the point of improving the explosions if they are hidden behind a giant pop up? I would have a small (even the solar panels in shadow notification is too big in my opinion) notification when anything breaks giving you the chance to open the screen if you want it. KSP 1 seemed to handle it fairly well. It only popped up (for me) following complete loss of vessel, and only after I attempted to give further commands to the non-existent craft. And it should be a "Vessel Status" screen not a "Mission Failure" screen because I might want to check it at other times. (What did that SRB knock off during staging?) Things would be far better if the game paused when the screen came up. Then we would have a chance to do something after closing the window, or at least the ability to watch the fireworks at not a 1/2 screen, view obscuring, dialog box.

I do want to add, that I feel that the potential is there in KSP 2 so long as it is given enough time to get there. Please, give it the time. Given the state of the game, I feel that the "Beta" screenshots were a bit misleading at best. That said, if I had known the true state, I still would have purchased KSP 2 for the potential that it has. In some ways I am glad it is in such an early state because it feels like the developers are going to have to relearn some of the lessons that the KSP 1 developers learned over the years. The sooner we, the players, get a chance to start demonstrating the some of the design/UI issues, the easier they will be to fix since they will not be as entrenched. I am worried about the poor multithreading performance I am seeing. I am not sure how many new features (over KSP 1) can be added without major gains in this area.

I am disappointed to hear this. With the current state of the game, maneuver node issues, SAS instability, craft loading in broken*, ...,the list goes on. There are too many fundamental problems right now that need fixing (barring any that are in temporary systems that are to be completely replaced in a future update) before any shift in focus to new features can be considered. I doubt the game at present is stable enough to enjoy any new features that are added that require more than 1 launch and 30 minutes to reach. * Loaded a craft at the launchpad. (already launched successfully several times trying to optimize flight path). A decoupler was a bit late in loading, but I didn't think anything of it until staging. When I staged, the decoupler exploded and the two stages it separated got stuck in each other completely ruining the launch.

I am not so sure. Most of my performance issues seem to be CPU related (poor multithreading) so I haven't been watching FPS counters much. What I did notice with patch 2 is that when launching the same rocket was much jerkier than it had been on patch 1. The clock ran at about the same (slightly slow rate), but it was far more noticeable to me visually. 4k 3090 Ti

The issue is not no life support versus no life support in the short term. The question is, was he speaking about what they are doing currently, or if he was speaking about their current plans for version 1.0 (or perhaps longer including DLCs) I would love to read the message from the point of view of current activities. That would be great. They would fix the current problems with the game (many), and once stable, life support would, sorry, might be one of the features added later in the road map. Until I read the second part of this AMA response, I had assumed this was the case and that life support was part of one of the later phases (probably colonies). Even if you read the AMA response this way, it does not promise that there would be life support in the future. (No life support in the short term might also be no life support ever) Unfortunately, the second part of the AMA response appears to indicate a focus on long term plans. Why does he move on to talk about modding, and that future improved moddability being the method to support the players who enjoyed KSP 1 life support mods? The response implied that they knew that there were people that liked life support, but that in their opinion the average player would be as happy without it ("the addition of life support won't enhance gameplay all that much for most players"). The only way I can read the AMA response is that there are no current plans to include life support in the base game. Note the use of the word current. I do not see it as a permanent decision at this point. Using the phase at present signals to me that there is a chance they could re-evaluate the decision in the future. Personally, I am concerned that if life support is not included in the 1.0 plans, that the developers will not want to wade into the mess of several competing life support mods, each with its own separate player base. Especially when they are not convinced at present it would "enhance gameplay." Mods are not an official part of a game, as a result, future features/optimizations may be implemented that clash badly with the mods functions, either on the surface, or more likely behind the scenes in the structure of the game's code.

The first part can be interpreted multiple ways. (1) It could be taken to mean that life support is not currently a high enough priority to work on, or (2) it could be taken to mean that life support is not currently in the plans. (Probably other interpretations as well, but these are the two I see). Since the second part of the response speaks about moddability and this moddability supporting the life support desiring part of the player base, the second interpretation (2) is the only one that makes sense to me.

I get no indication at all from the AMA response that life stock life support is currently anywhere is the plans for KSP 2. To me is says the current plan seems to be that once they add the modding tools (moddability is easier), modders will be able to add life support for those players who want it. The only positive I see in the response (and this comes from how I interpret the in the short term) is that it does appear to leave the door open to re-evaluating stock life support after 1.0 and they can evaluate the state of the community then. (A number of useful mods/mod features like Kerbal Alarm Clock did make it into KSP 1 eventually so there is a little hope there)