DJWyre

If the PC version is literally the same version as the PS4/XB1 version, then yes, this is not good. The chances of the console game literally being the same lump of code as the PC version? Very unlikely. Anyway, good to see that platform snobbery, elitism and contempt is still going strong!

Problem is that there's two 'th' sounds in English - Eth, the voiced dental fricative, and Thorn, the voiceless dental fricative, which used to have letters in English, but no longer, making pronunciation unknown without colloquial knowledge. Fun fact: 'Ye Old Pub' is pronounced 'The Old Pub', the Y is actually a mis-copying of a lower case thorn. Edit: Double check: Thorn actually can and has been used for both depending on the script/language. IPA uses eth and theta.

I pronounce doon and dune differently, so Doo-na sounds odd to me, because... it's an orange planet covered in dunes. If I iz bein lazy wiv me mowf, it's Juna. Otherwise Dyoo-na.

Knowing and being able are two very different things. Aside from KSP, I play a lot of World of Tanks; knowing the mechanics, the maps, the tanks, etc. will only get you so far, it's takes thousands if not tens of thousands of games to really get the way it all meshes together and play well. From what I can tell the KSP2 tutorials are more 'orbit = fast sideways' rather than specific heights, trajectories, speeds, TWR, etc. Like a Car manual will tell you what the clutch is for, but won't teach you clutch control. You'd be surprised how many people don't know that orbit isn't just going ' up to space' or not understand why the Hermes in The Martian can't 'just turn around'. You and others may find joy in discovering the laws of gravity, but for most it would be a needlessly long and frustrating wall to learn about a basic building block of the rest of the game. I knew how to orbital a body before playing KSP - I still jumped out of my chair and screamed the first time I did it. KSP1 is like coming to a crossroads with no signpost, you try looking on a map but there is no map. Some may try each path until they get where they're going, most will say "F**k it" and go home.

Decided to have some KSP fun for the first time in ages, updated all the mods, everything seems to be working fine except for [x]Science and ScienceAlert (latter of which I'd never used before but tried it next). Neither work at all, not even an error code, they simply do not appear ingame.

I'm thinking (or hoping?) this is the case. I don't want to know what planets there are in the systems beyond Kerbol. I'd rather discover them myself.

This is good to hear. I literally jumped out of my chair and did a little dance when I first reached orbit all those years ago. I knew that space wasn't really up, but sideways fast. Didn't mean I knew how to do it. Where that line between explaining a basic principle like orbits, Hohmann Transfers, etc. and detailing specific steps lies is going to be difficult and (annoyingly) subjective. I know it might take more time, but how about a tiered tutorial system of some kind? Players could opt to see more details (Want to Know More!?) during the lesson either by a difficulty setting chosen with the start of a new game or a 'Details' window toggle during it.

Because Minmus is too easy personally. Landing on it is simply not challenging enough. A probe landing on Mun without hold-retro and without the science to unlock the second relay is properly tense. I honestly can't remember. Also... I suck at spaceplaces! The cost/aggro makes them frankly a bore personally when it comes to careers.

Rule 1: Probe before Kerbals. Though obviously not for the first few missions until I unlock cores. This covers first flyby, orbit and landing. Obviously this makes going to certain bodies a multi-window operation. Rule 2: Follow the main missions. Eg. No Mun orbit until flyby mission is complete. No going to Minmus until Mun is finished. Rule 3: No science from Minmus unless mission requires. You can easily complete the tree in the Kerbin system, which is boring if only because I like the idea of progression by going places *cough*KSP2*cough*. Rule 4: Bring Them Home: No Kerbal rescue mission is ever rejected. As for reusability; I usually find that by the time I can make decent reusable first stages I am developing ISRU systems on Mun and Minmus. And at that point I have numerous 'Hopper' craft that ferry things in-system. Kerbals on Kerbin that need to go somewhere are sent up on super-cheap 1.25m capsules to awaiting vessels.

But you got the joke, right?

Very useful, I'm sure. But does it play guitar?

Back in your box!

Remember that PD is just the publisher and KSP2 is one of several of titles. So there's a chance we won't get anything. That said, aside from an Outer Worlds and/or Ancestors DLC I can't see much other reason for them to be there aside from KSP2 news so I am allowing myself to get a little excited.

*Cough*StarCitizen*cough* To add to the point made about the change in the nature of software development cycles; Game development is increasingly becoming more and more expensive. You now have teams of dozens or hundreds of people who are expecting professional pay-grades, marketing can run up to 40%+ of your budget, graphics are becoming more detailed and time consuming, etc. All the while AAA games have been stuck at $60 for around ten years and no one wants to be the first to step over the line. Cyberpunk 2077 will probably be $60. Should it cost more like $100? Probably, but they can't charge that. And so there will be DLC.

True, but the ore map at least could be auto-generated for each body.

So long as this puzzle is auto-generated/randomised with each new game, otherwise you just need one person to find the right places and post them, killing the challenge. The alternative is restricting mission/tech progression buy requiring certain tasks to be done, which would create a narrow corridor of hoops to jump through rather than the open world(s) aspect that KSP1 is so loved for.

The game isn't finished, so final launch date (pun intended) isn't certain. Swamping media outlets constantly for what?... 6-12 months?... Will actually dampen hype rather than build it. The thing about hype is the lack of information. People can't speculate if they know more and more with each passing week and speculation is founded on the imagination brought about from trying to fill in the blanks. My personal hunch is that updates will be thin at first and then grow more frequent, but detail will actually diminish the closer we get to release. That way the amount of info coming out per <insert arbitrary time-frame> is constant but the speed appears higher and hype/speculation fatigue is kept in check.

Maybe NASA has asked them to delay? https://xkcd.com/2204/

What everyone else has said. Your CoP might be behind the CoM but only on a pure prograde vector. Stick some AV-R8s on the main stage as low as you can put them. If it's still flipping then we'll need more data like the altitude, speed and orientation of when it does so. Also.... LAUNCH CLAMPS!

$60, this is not an 'Indie' title this time. Will be DLCs. Robotics? No idea, probably not at the start though.

Getting to Mun is easier than Minmus, mostly because of the inclination and the size of it's SoI (Sphere of Influence). Staying and especially landing there is a lot easier with the latter though and as it's further than Mun from Kerbin you get higher science per experiment. Personally, Minmus is overpowered regarding science and in my current game I have refused to gather any there and only going because of missions. For a new player though, it's a gold mine and you are going to need everything you can get your hands on. As for your next step, if you don't have it yet, aim for the Terrier. It's a must have for early game work and will enable you to get around the Kerbin system easily.

Should be noted that a lot of vacuum engines don't produce much light anyway and nothing like the exhausts in KSP. Of course that doesn't look cool so KSP has big ol' flames shooting out the back of your frog-people's tin can.

The problem we have at the moment is the huge disparity between the cost of developing an indie title and a 'AAA'. Big budget games have been stuck at $60 for about 10 years but inflation and the increasing amount of work (especially in visual/sound assets and marketing in a highly competitive sphere) has put the benchmark dev cost at $100 million (at least). That's well over 1 million units just to break even. Then you have to cover the cost of the games that don't do well and, and , and we suddenly realise why they're charging $20 for a DLC, $40 for an expansion and chucking loot boxes and P2W repurposed bovine waste at us. It may be worth noting that you can spend well over $500 on Rimworld's 'bonus' content.

This has pretty much my response (voiced or not) to a lot of people's 'KSP2 must have X' and 'KSP2 must not have Y' threads/demands. I started playing on 'easy' mode and have been ramping things up over the last couple of years to the point where I am going to be looking towards mods for the next step in game experience/challenge. A simple starting point that the player can build on is what gives a game longevity. So give me live support, N-body physics, more detailed surface scanning, atmospheric effects/weather, a dozen different fuel types, finite engine re-lights, etc. But make them options that you don't have to turn on.

All for physical weather effects so long as it's an option at game creation.