Observe

Hi @StarCrusher96 . I tried playing, but alas, the memory demand is too great for my system. This was with a fresh KSP install, and with only the requisite mods associated with this one. Whereas, normally I play KSP RSS with an abundance of mods present and my performance is reasonably good. I don't have specific performance data to present. However, the difference between "unmoded" KSS2 vs heavily modded RSS is significant. Admittedly, I don't have the greatest computer, but it's generally sufficient for the games I play. Anyway, congratulations on the new release. From what I can see, it is up to your usual high standard.

Yes, things will change. The morale will likely sink even lower than it already is. Those who still hold a glimmer of hope, may find it harder to keep that glimmer alive. I'm expecting this project will be officially dead within a year from now. Hopefully I'm wrong and this will emerge as a worthy successor to KSP-1. Personally, I've given up on KSP-2 pretty much altogether.

No. At least not this member. I admit I was pretty disappointed with the cavalier comment that Nate made in this regard. Please don't preserve wobbly rockets out of how "fun and funny" you might think they are. Turning a bug into a feature probably doesn't work for this game.

Not all. Still, interesting to watch how the tide turns, based on snow-job rhetoric. Problem is, eventually the piper will be paid, because words alone will once again bring out the pitchforks.

I agree. Given the current state of the game, anything they say at this point is either construed as more lies on top of lies or just adds more fuel to the fire, forging even more pitchforks for the angry defrauded players. These days, whenever I read anything by Nate or others from the company desperately trying to pull the wool over our eyes with poorly constructed marketing BS, I leave feeling they need to hire someone who is either better at lying or better at telling the truth.

I agree with @MarcAbaddon. Personally, I run KSP1 with Real Solar System and quite a few other select mods. I always add one mod at a time and make sure it doesn't break anything, before adding additional mods. Basic good practice for mods in any game. I don't know how many thousand hours I have in KSP1, but it is considerable. Sure, KSP1 has its quirks and bugs, but once you know them, the game is highly playable and thoroughly enjoyable. At least that's my experience.

I probably missed something, but I wonder why do we want to time-warp while operating engines? Generally, engines only run for a few minutes or so. High efficiency, low powered engines (ion for example) may run for longer, but not so long that warp makes sense (to me). Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.

I'll second that. I'd like to see the game mimic the real world in terms of science and exploration goals and purposes as much as possible. Why have we sent science missions to the Moon and elsewhere? Those are the same goals that the game should have. I don't like the idea of one-module-fits-all. Real missions involve highly customized and specialized probes and landers etc. I don't want the game to be easier just to satisfy the casual player at the expense of the more serious students of space science. Same goes for life support and other aspects. Finding the right balance to maximize the player base, while still qualifying as a 'realistic' space sim is certainly not an easy task.

Seems to me that they've pretty much said "leave us alone while we work on the game". Recent information provided, explains that bug-fix patches are taking away from the bigger picture and that's why they have reduced patch cadence in favor of continuing to build the overall framework that continued feature development will require. Their feeling is that this is the most productive use of their attention. At least that's what I got out of their communication. Not much solace, but understandable given the delayed state of the game. Early access players are really unpaid beta testers (or alpha) and they can only follow the direction of the developers and patiently wait for new stuff to test.

I concur. I've been struggling with this myself, as I've been unable to see how KSP2 terrain is any better than the original. Sure, there are a few more low res trees here and there on Kerbin, but otherwise, personally I think KSP1 terrain is as good if not better.

To me, one of the main question is do the programmers have a solid grip on how to code the game to a satisfactory release? Or, are they buried in over their heads with dead-end attempts to make things work in ways that just won't? I definitely sympathize with the developers, who are no doubt stressed by upper management marketing decisions in addition to programming challenges. Marketing people can lie, but a programmer cannot lie their way into operational code. The best they can do, is try to hang on to their jobs so they can feed their families while the ship tumbles out of control and they update their resumes.

Reminds me a bit of the Theranos scandal. Perhaps someday, this kind of behavior in the game industry, will be met with similar condemnation and legal consequences.

At this point, I've given up on KSP2 entirely. I'm fine with KSP1 and have resigned myself to the very real possibility that KSP2 development may be terminated before it reaches parity with KSP1. I can only conjecture the reasons for this debacle. Perhaps someone will eventually attempt a KSP3, free of the baggage and bad blood between studios associated with KSP2. Alas, as I am and elder, I may not be around by the time that happens. To me, one of the worst effects of KSP2, is that there are some great modders who stopped creating for KSP1, while they waited for KSP2. Hopefully, they will return to and continue supporting the original game.

There are no options in this poll for "I'm not interested in multiplayer". The closest is option #1, but I didn't select that, because I'm not interested in multiplayer and I don't intend to "check it out".

I think part of the anger comes from the feeling of having been lead down a primrose path by marketing/lies and great disappointment that the development of the sequel to a game we love, has been so mismanaged. I don't think the detractors "hate" the KSP game, as much as they are not happy with the implementation, or lack thereof of KSP2.

I wonder if the game would benefit from a different physics engine? One such, is Jolt, discussed here for example. Though, perhaps that would be barking up the wrong tree for all I know. " By switching to this new engine, the studio saved memory, executable size, and were able to double their simulation frequency while using less CPU time."

I see higher parts counts being mostly relevant to space stations and surface colonies. Let's say I have a 500 part space station and I want to dock a 200 part spaceship. That's already 700 parts and could easily reach 1000 if I want to dock multiple ships. So I don't think 1000 parts is at all unreasonable. This is one of the weaknesses in KSP1 and hopefully KSP2 will improve on. However, I don't see it happening, unless the game adopts a different approach to physics calculations and their accompanying negative impact on performance.

I'd add Egosoft's X4 to the list. Not exactly realism by KSP standards, but X4 has a pretty good space economy simulation. Unlike Elite Dangerous, X4 is a single-player game, which I prefer over internet connected multiplayer. The final chapter "Kingdoms End" will be released April 12. Great game by a small team that has been at it for many decades. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1990040/X4_Kingdom_End/

When development is not doing well, as is and has been clearly the case with KSP2, six months is not a very long time. The next roadmap step (Science) can probably be released in spite of a very buggy foundation, so that could come fairly soon (within 3 months), with the same EA excuse for it not working or working poorly. If they want to heap bugs upon more bugs, before ironing out some serious underlying problems with their code, I think they could come out with a malfunctioning Colonies implementation within six months. For Interstellar, I'd give that six months to one year before we see it. Exploration shouldn't be too big of a deal as such. We may see it in nine months. Probably the biggest challenge here, is adding enough stuff to make exploring interesting. Multiplayer is a pipe dream for this game. I'm guessing we will never see it, or if we do, it'll be some kind of Multiplayer light, that does little other than make everything worse. So, I expect the game to limp past the one year mark, with a mostly crippled roadmap in place, while still struggling to compete with KSP1.

If we don't have life support, then why bother having Kerbals at all? Might as well do everything with robotics - except we don't have that either.

With several years development and KSP1 as a base, I figured KSP2 early access would be at least as capable as KSP1 final version in every way and would already have overcome or improved significant KSP1 fundamental weaknesses . I find it odd, to see so many people excusing KSP2 problems by comparing it to early KSP1. This is like excusing the wheels falling off a new car, because wagon wheels couldn't go that fast either.

I'm guessing that the tiny percentage of people who are prone to Epileptic seizures caused by flashing lights or other video display, are already very aware of the issue that they have. Certainly, displaying the warning once, with ability to turn it off, seems entirely reasonable. I'm not aware of any legal requirement for such warning.

How is atmospheric fight? I can get by with aircraft for a while if that aspect is stable and IF it is an improvement. Is atmospheric heating in place? Thanks.

Is there anything about KSP2 that is better than KSP1? From what I can tell, KSP2 falls short of the original in all areas that matter and thus far, has nothing of significance to entice me to buy. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Long time player of ksp1 here. I was prepared to buy ksp2, but I put the brakes on when I read the state of the early access game. Considering this is ksp2, I erroneously thought that early access would have all the important features of ksp1 in working order and that mainly it would be the new expanded features of ksp2 that might be missing or unfinished. After all this time and several lengthy delays, I figured the game would be playable at least to ksp1 standards. I'll keep an eye on how things pan out with ksp2. In the meantime, I'll continue playing ksp1, which runs well enough for me and for which there is a plethora of mods to keep me happy enough.