mcwaffles2003

@Nate Simpson Thanks for coming into the forums and clarifying so many questions (In game vs pre rendered, clarification on clouds, etc...). Not many other games have developers willing to be so open and cordial with its community, so thank you.

A case of to each their own then I suppose. I would love the chance to orbit a red giant having its atmosphere being sucked to an accretion disk around a neutron star or white dwarf Surely there will be modded systems but I hope for some dev flavor. Also, once again, it might not take that long to create a world once the development environment for world creation is in place, so why not make many?

I understand what you are saying but having so few systems limits the range of system types that can be presented and appreciating the macro features of a system to me matters as much as the micro features body to body in a system. Personally, I'm hoping to see things like binary star systems, young ring world systems, systems with a red giant or blue hypergiant, etc... Not to mention not all systems have to have a large swath of planets. Some could lack any planets or have only gas giants/ice worlds that cant be landed on.

The devs have said there will be "boom events" that will cause an increase of population at a colony. We were not given specifics as to what causes the events. In short, kerbals will reproduce, not based on time, but based on how you have built your colony

I genuinely get what you mean here and even if there were more than 5 or 10 systems I doubt more than 1% of the community would visit more than 3. But I think there is an appealing nature to know theres always more you haven't seen yet. Also, I just think it might look lonely if there was a small number of systems when you zoom out to that level. This is part of why I hope ,but doubt I will see it, that there would be a procedurally generated galaxy outside the handcrafted local neighborhood. Kind of like an endless forest at the edge of a map so you don't have invisible walls or empty space o

At least unfueled parts will no longer explode The popular consensus is that kerbals are plants (personally I disagree as plants couldn't survive with the light source 20x further away....). But with that as popular consensus, no need to create waste (though I would like life systems...)

Well this why I was asking for someone in the industries take on the subject. Does it take a whole month for a full time professional artist to make a planet or a week? I would like a quality game but quality comes with diminishing returns vs time and I don't have the experience or judgment to make that call. Heck, maybe it only takes 2 days to make a good planet by someone who does this for a living? If that's the case we will have 45 - 60 systems. I thought a week/planet was being conservative, personally.

I've seen kopernicus planets done by amateur's in like an hour: I figure if this is someone's main focus in development then 40 hours per celestial body isn't unreasonable (perhaps it is). In my defense, professional artists can do something in an hour that a layman would imagine taking days of effort (i.e. Bob Ross) I don't see how axial tilt would cause any change in dev time and I don't think local water levels have even been confirmed, only speculated/wished for. Unique terrain I have no doubt will be there, though I imagine a professional artist could manage something like th

If the game is launched early spring 2022, the game started development in mid summer 2017, and covid + studio change set the team back 9 months that gives approx 4 yrs of dev time. Assuming they didn't start making planets until a year and a half or so into development that gives 2.5 yrs of time to build planets. I've gotten the impression there's been a guy at the studio who's main job has been creating the planets and such (what a cool job...). Estimating it takes a week to finish a celestial body from start to finish on average and there will have been about 125 weeks of celestial body dev

If anything there shouldn't be weather on kerbin, it's the tutorial phase. Though, adding weather to other planets like sandstorms on duna would be cool perhaps.

@Lord Aurelius Honestly, with how KSP is we're going to have to define what "progression" is then. Firstly, is there an "ultimate goal" in the game? I would argue not really. We have the storyline contracts but these are simply requests to prove you can perform a maneuver but not really fulfilling a "why" you are performing that maneuver. Not to mention, once you complete the Mun and Minmus contracts then all the planet contracts are essentially the same thing just at a different place. Sadly, at this point, none of the prior contracts are preparing you for later contracts. This is why

The definition of a torch drive is a drive that is both very powerful and very efficient.... This question is silly http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/torchships.php

I believe the most efficient route would be to get really far out of the gravity well, retro-burn from apogee to graze the sun then burn at perigee near the sun.

I miss demos but I dont recall ever seeing a DRM free content complete demo.... If KSP had a demo that was missing half the parts and only included Kerbin, Kerbol, and Mun then that would be something worth while to demonstrate its mechanics, splendor, and playability without cutting into its sales. If they also included some of the tutorials in the demo that would probably help convince a lot of players initially intimidated by KSP to hop on as well since this game seems to be one that does that

@PthigriviAny chance you would mind adding a poll to this thread to see which of the options people would prefer if they were given the choice? It may help publicly quantify what direction the community may want this to head in.