Bej Kerman

I agree with most of your suggestions, except this one. I don't see why this is a necessary change - if you're zooming through a vessel and this isn't what you want, what's stopping you from just middle clicking the part you want to zoom in on?

Not to nitpick, but if your computer can't render a convincingly detailed smashed clock, it's probably from the early 2000s.

Surely right, but if I had access to colony building whilst going from Duna to Jool, I'll absolutely take it- Like we've seen in the trailer, Duna has a large mothership, and Jool has a whole fuel station with an interstellar ship construction site.. You'll have to send probes, landers, expeditions, etc. first

To address your fear, no, I don't believe the first 5 or even 10 tiers will represent most of the game.

Okay. I think I was more confused by the assertion that colonies will definitely be at tier 4 as if we already know they're not going to be much further down the tree.

I have no clue what this is on about. What does a tier mean in this context? Do you mean the tiers in the R&D building? Cause I don't remember anything from For Science pertaining to colonies.

Ah Well that definitely would have had to do with performance. Plumes only have to take the shape of a cone, and re-entry effects are gonna have to conform to badly aimed interstellar vessels.

Performance, changes in art direction, or some combo of the two I'd assume.

Yeah. Overexcessive colonisation is Britain's job

They were planning on messing it up, but since you asked nicely now they won’t. Have you tried just... not coding bugs?

These rules seem a bit pointless if you don't mind the criticism.

Worst bug I've encountered so far is having a vessel I was trying to dock with ping away at several meters a second when I got near the docking tolerance range. Compared to KSP 1 where I had bugs making it impossible to undock (which for my intents and purposes is even worse) I'd say the bugs are relatively tame now.

A bradford is a gaggle of chavs.

Speak for yourself

Despite Hello Games' efforts, the all-time reviews for NMS still sit at 77%. Which is good but far from the recent 96%. It'll probably be a while before the all-time reviews are back in the blue.

The UI isn't doing its job if you need it explaining in plain English that it doesn't follow usual conventions.

...can mean the exact same. Just a polite heads up, I'm going to completely ignore "you can just ignore it" points from now on since it completely sidelines the very real impact this has on how the UI is interpreted (for example, what Aziz said: new players think they need to place a highlighted part down. They won't just ignore this). I've got a gut feeling "people can just ignore it" is not a point that's raised in the industry.

That's not the point. When things are highlighted, it means the UI is trying to say something. You can ignore it but it's still there regardless. Highlighting things in the manner you describe tends to mean "you can only pick these for that" in UI design, and that's the wrong message to send to players.

What "KSP 1 Defaults"? KSP 1 couldn't keep its control schemes straight between the SPH and the VAB lol, doing this would require the developers to not only create KSP 1 mappings but also have two of them, each of which conflicts with the horizontal or vertical modes. The entire point of the KSP 2 control scheme was to forego this mess. The solution is to just not think of the KSP 1 controls cause they were a problem the developers fixed. To address this point, I don't see why trackpad support has to involve what KSP 1 did. Why not just let the developers come up with their own solution that works with vertical and horizontal builds?

Fuel cells necessitate bringing lf/Ox, which will significantly reduce dV. It also produces electricity from a limited pool of resources you may run out of before using all your xenon. Either that, or you may end up bringing too much fuel and waste dV. Solar panels and RTGs are a way better choice for ion engines, they're much lighter and they don't run out. It also helps to bring a lot of batteries for longer, darker burns

It sounds like they're talking about subassemblies (accessible from the advanced parts menu). You can drag and drop a group of parts into the subassembly list and retrieve it later. Make sure the part of the booster you're attaching payloads to is the root.

It sounds like either your rear wheels, your center of lift, or both are not close enough to the center of mass. If your rear wheels are too far back, they'll push into the surface instead of allowing the aircraft to raise its nose. If the center of lift is too far back, aerodynamic forces will prevent your aircraft from acquiring an adequate AoA for takeoff. Ensuring your front wheel extends further down than the rear ones also ensures that your aircraft passively gathers lift as it accelerates. You can also decrease the friction control and brake force on the front wheel as well if you still have problems with the aircraft spinning out, and if that's not enough you can do the opposite to the rear wheels. There can never be too much thrust

What if the resource density just approaches a certain fraction of the original at a logarithmic rate? You can stay in one place or forget about a colony, but there's still benefits to surface exploration and active management.

KSP's progression has also been widely criticised and most mods that alter the progression make an effort towards realism. The Universe won't start inventing elements just because it's the future, and the point of colonies is to harvest presumably-generic resources so you can launch from other planets.

Literally couldn't tell you how long I've played either game; I run Steam in offline mode all the time.