Chilkoot

Can't believe this is from 3 1/2 years ago. Man, so much has transpired between then and now.

Unfortunately, no. PS5/Xbox Series X&S only, and that is still a loooong way off (like 2025).

Possibly unpopular opinion, but I feel that Nate & Co. missed a real opportunity to start fresh with new lore and a new planetary system. For the life of me, I can't figure out why they recycled the original right down the last orbital inclination. I tend to think it was perhaps a pander. The original system could have been a location you discover later in the game with interstellar travel or something. Canon really becomes whatever the IP owner decides (ahem, Disney *cough*), so there was nothing really compelling Star Theory at the time to rebuild the original system for this release. As great as new Duna looks, it's still... Duna. Again.

I believe this is a bug with upper stages that have landing legs attached. I've been fighting this as well, and it doesn't seem like x-feed settings have any effect, sadly.

Fair point. IFR eyeball bounce was a problem with the KSP 1 instrument readout - no argument there.

For sure. In KSP 1 the option to move the navball to the edges was a huge boon as it occluded critical info, like you're saying. I don't like the navball in the centre, but I do (personally) prefer the great big, clear altimeter and atmospheric density gauges in a more "heads-up" position esp. for launches and landings.

I def. get the intent, but I find it's like that minimap in the top corner of an ARPG - you spend all your time staring at the minimap and not the game screen. I notice this happening quite a bit with the new UI. Best possible case is moveable elements and a moddable UI so people can (eventually) play the way they want.

Heh - you think it looks bad at 4k, try it at 1440p. They used integer scaling for many portions of the interface, which does *not* work with a pixel-art style lol. The "all in the corner" instruments were a poor decision as well, IMO - takes visual focus away from the ship/environment, and makes the whole game feel like an IFR rather than VFR experience, which really diminishes the wonder at breaking through the clouds on launch, or descending onto a new celestial body for the first time. Hopefully there are a lot of new options planned for the interface (I know some prefer the IFR experience - need options not forced changes). OK, it's hard to deny it's in a very rough state - maybe the worst EA I've seen yet on Steam. There's a significant patch planned for Thursday, so hopefully some of the worst problems you've encountered are addressed in that patch. So, yeah, certainly not for everyone, but there's still a lot of optimism for the path forward.

Yeah, even with a polar launch trajectory, the plane change is only a few degrees. Jool it is!

Not sure if this is in the right forum... I want to place a couple of comms relays in highly elliptical, polar orbits around Kerbol (Sun). Does anyone know the most efficient way to establish that orbit? Should I start with an equatorial orbit and burn from there like I want to capture Moho/Eve, then change inclination? Or should I launch directly into a polar orbit around Kerbin and then escape that SOI and Hohmann on over to Kerbol maintaining a high inclination right from launch? My gut's telling me to launch due north out of the gate but I'm wondering if there's a more efficient way to do it.

There are apparently "large struts" in the game files, but *not available for use in the public build. I guess we'll see what they do.

That's a beautiful rig, dude

Young Jedly riding the atmo to Eve's surface. Smooth touchdown! Now off to the mall with the new wheels.

Whoa there - let's not conflate the scientific method with forming a viewpoint based on layered tiers of speculation that can't be tested. That's how fringies like Graham Hancock pull the wool over people's eyes. Not suggesting you're being devious, but we need to be careful about what we believe and why, and not apply the same rules to very different ways of assessing certainty of knowledge. Think about the burden of proof in science (like your example) or the justice system. Even if "we weren't there", to have some kind of reasonable belief that development started afresh, we'd be looking for some kind of evidence in the form of documentation, access to the historical code repository, correspondence, etc., or even testimony from the people involved, which would be much weaker evidence. A modern archaeologist wouldn't jump to the conclusion development was started fresh given the current evidence, neither would a prosecutor file charges based on the strength of the evidence we have. There are two "real world" reasons we have to doubt that Intercept intended to throw out the code base from Star Theory, even though they may have eventually: The initially optimistic release window(s) communicated by Intercept shortly after they took over development of KSP 2 implied that development was continuing, not starting over. These initial dates were completely unrealistic for a from-scratch dev cycle. Were the developers/publishers hopelessly optimistic or even lying to save face? Possibly. Or they could have been relatively confident they could keep pushing forward with what they have. The fact that the code and creative assets produced by Star Theory under contract by PD would have legally been the property of PD/TT, and there was no investor guidance related to the write-off of that asset. There's more than enough cause for doubt that we should be taking the position that we presume or suspect that development was rebooted somewhere along the line, not that we are sure it did on day one at Intercept. Based on what we do know, this sounds like the the most probable situation. There were some off-handed remarks in interviews right around the initial announcement that alluded so *some* code or perhaps asset re-use from KSP 1. This could have been the case with the code transported from Star Theory to Intercept as well - there was every intent (and timeline projection) to continue along with development, but eventually reality settled in and that code was binned in favour of a rewrite for the reasons a lot of people have cited here. This is also supported to an extent by the significant, recurring delays and the state of the EA release several years into the process.

I take issue with conjecture being presented as fact, as we all should. There's a difference between stating, "I suspect development restarted again from scratch in 2020..." and saying, "Development did restart from scratch in 2020." The first is a possibly supported standpoint given no direct facts. The second is borderline misinformation and should be called out.

It would be great to see this storyline resurrected by a proper writer and embedded in the game somehow. I can't see how a "story mode" would work in this game, but letting the story unfold as you explore would be pretty sweet.

But no evidence. Apocrypha/heresay.

We have no evidence this is true - only conjecture.

Nate posted earlier today saying target date for the first patch is next Thurs (March 16), barring unforeseen issues.

Nate didn't give specifics, but he alluded to the spirit of what you're suggesting here, i.e. life support matters, but colonies won't require *babysitting/micromanagement. The word "snacks" has come up so many times in Dev interviews it would be surprising if they aren't canon by the time 1.0 lands.

Every life is a certain percent "worry" - we need to worry and be upset about things for emotional balance. If we have nothing real to worry about (food, safety, shelter, health), we find stuff to worry about (social status, what to wear, the neighbor's yard, etc.). If people come in here feeling legitimately upset about Kerbal, we should be happy for them, as it means things are probably pretty darn OK in their lives outside the game. I just try to be happy for them and ignore the moaning

SDRP

Fresh start today. Setting up a polar comms relay to manage my upcoming swarm of probes... Still fine-tuning the north polar elliptical. Thanks Obama Maneuver Nodes. A lonely comms satellite doing it's job out in the void. I need to remember to radio it around Christmas.

Count me in! I'll take it extra dry with a twist and - of course - shaken

The great linguistic hodgepodge that is English also has the word verdant which implies the color of living vegetation. Most of these variations will trace back to Latin viridis (verte, verde, etc.).