Jack Mcslay

Flight sim controllers appear as normal dinput controllers precisely so developers don't have to have a large inventory of different controllers to test with, only a general knowledge of how they work. As such, the issue is easy to replicate, get a dinput controller, push and hold any button (simulates a selector switch), attempt to assign a button and then push another button. The function will be assigned to a combination of both buttons despite only one button changing state while assigning the buttons.

I'm running into issues configuring for flight sim quadrants. They have selector switches such they have virtual buttons in which remain held pressed according to each switch position. That means any button or axis I try to configure AFBW thinks it's supposed to be assigned to the combination of all buttons pressed at the time including all selector switch states, making the selector switches useless and the controller only works at all when all selector switches are in the same position as it was when configuring until I manually edit the config files to remove the buttons I don't want from each combination. Could there be a fix such it only reads the inputs activated after opening the window to set the input?

If you plan to do activities on the surface with unmanned craft, getting coverage to the far side is hardly optional. Although, I'm damn sure the range of the fully upgraded tracking station was in KSP1 would not be enough for interstellar, and current or near-future technology KSP2 focuses on is probably not enough either, so I'm curious how will intestellar comms will look like

Completely different issue. Gamedev doesn't work like a conveyor belt where you push highest priority items and that necessarily becomes the next issue to fix. They have a more robust team now and it's unlikely that taking resources away from asset development would improve the work on bug and performance fixes.

Supplies would be a much more logical approach to such a feature, it's much more intuitive to say the engineers and scientists aren't working very effectively because they don't have the necessary materials than them being hungry just causes them to get grumpy

KSP is known for it's challenges way more than being truest to real life space exploration, and life support would completely kill minimalist challenges that often times rely on strapping a command chair to a rocket

One thing I find lacking on the original game are control binding capabilities suitable to flight sim hardware, made worse by that you can't configure the controls without going back to the main menu. I'm hoping KSP2 will have a more extensive control configuration for it, with features as such: All switchable functions (lights, gear, rcs) be given 4 different binding options: Toggle, Enable, Disable and Hold - high end flight control panels have swiches that report differently depending on model More predefined functions common in aircrafts, such as thrust reversal, high performance engine mode, collective, engine on/off Support for throttles with idle and afterburner detents (this video explains what it means - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_67641vioY ) Allow different crafts have different control configurations, like, your're not going to get much use out of flight controls if you're driving a rover on Tylo and if you have a single joystick it would be very useful to have it bound to accel/brake and steering rather than pitch and yaw

What exactly was that incident? I'm confused how a piece of equipment apparently getting hit by a truck relates to your computer being fried. Also here's a little idea, why not track down a ThrustMaster Millennium 3D Inceptor for the right joystick? It's a 3-axis Space Shuttle joystick replica, making it much more immersive and functional than a pair of industrial joystick bases Here's the space shuttle cockpit for comparison http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-062611a/015.jpg

Since we have now the final version, we're not going to get any major improvements anymore and minor glitches will remains unsolved, so I decided to start looking into making a mod to fix it myself, as to create improvements that I think should be in the stock game. What I have in mind so far: Fixing flying vessels registering as if moving over surface Bring the builtin alarm clock up to par with KAC (add encounter mode, auto select the timer type, better pre-naming of timer) Science transfer message saying "Transferred X experiments from Y to Z" instead of flashing dozens of messages telling every experiment being transferred Experiment review window as a scrolling list instead of showing every experiment and having to click on each one to finally close the window More filtering options in the tracking station, such as listing only objects landed at or orbiting a specific body, showing only asteroids of a specific class Calendar function listing apoapsis and periapsis of celestial bodies, SOI changes, incoming maneuver nodes, transfer windows and probably other things I can think of More vessel info in tracking station and map view, showing resources without having to switch to the vessel List of nearby vessels to switch to Text borders so it doesn't blend in with the terrain Anyone have more ideas? Keep in mind, this is only about general improvements, do not suggest changes that affect the core gameplay or visuals. I'm not going to slay the kraken.

Consider they're targeting to be able to make the game very appealing to children (which are not very often given U$500+ gaming PCs), and it's stated to be able to run on PS4 and X1 which are 8 years old by now, I think I can assume that the game will be pretty flexible in graphics settings

What other argument? The only argument is that you desperately want the game visuals to be far more dull just for a minuscule increase in realism that was complained by virtually nobody in over 10 years of KSP The Expanse disagrees with you

Now you're grasping at straws. The requirements for the art design follows the same thought process as the game design. Games that do a good job with their art design become recognized for their visuals, while games that focus on realistic visuals will eventually end up looking dated. This is why Mortal Kombat 1-3 aged poorly but not Street Fighter II. Consider this scene from a space movie also with a loose sense of realism Now imagine if they implemented it. Those shots with nearby celestial bodies would look very dull and look more like a budget 60's movie. This is art fundamentals, good art is one such that impresses the viewer, not one that goes for visual accuracy. Then why does the game allow painting your ship any color other than silver or white?

Except what you're suggesting is bad game design. Please watch this excerpt (skip to 6:37 if the video starts from the beginning) Just because you can do something does not mean you should. Some of the coolest shots in KSP are nearby planets with the clearly visible galactic ring around it. It would be boneheaded to spend time and resources to make a game look worse just because it's realistic when full realism isn't the goal of the game in first place. I was being technical. A game engine does not know what big light and little light is, it only knows light values so you're instructing the game to make stars dimmer.

Something I find inconvenient is the way dates and time intervals are presented. I think the game should have weeks and/or months to make it easier to visualize time; And the way they set up the original game makes for a convenient system: A full Mün orbit is ~6 kerbin days. That fits perfectly with kerbin having a 426 day year, giving a year with 71 6-day weeks A full Minmus orbit is ~50 days. If you divide that by the year that's a bit rough, resulting in 8½ months, but if you round it down to 48 days that results in 8 6-week months and a final 5-week month So you have a system that's convenient and makes perfect sense that kerbals would use, such that '1y 285d' could be expressed by '1Y 5M 7W 3D', '1Y 5M 45D', or '1Y 47W 3D'

KSP isn't a hardcore simulation, it's a simcade-level spaceship building game. It's meant to be a cool game before anything else, so I'm not sure dimming stars near celestial bodies is on the table, at least not by default, it could be an option you can enable if you want, otherwise someone will probably make that a mod.

With the scale of the engines on KSP2 I'm really hoping for a stock sea dragon engine

I think there should be procedural solar panels,w or at least more options, I find it very lacking there isn't a rotating solar panel fitting for small probes, for instance, the 1x6 could have 1x1, 1x2,1x3, 1x4 and 1x5 variants

Option 2 has a bad track record in terms of modding ability. Games with in-house engines such as GTAV and Skyrim are often mostly stuck to plugins to add weapons, vehicles and characters since the engine is so heavily focused on the game at hand without much room to make really big changes. I guess building an engine on top of Ogre could help a little with graphical mods by enabling it's python bindings but in any case I don't see a realistic scenario they could implement a modding framework as good as sticking with Unity.

I usually give my rovers the ability to take off and land by themselves, so I can safely traverse at speed knowing I can reduce my speed mid-jump to avoid hard landings, and often they are able to fulfill the role of skycrane as well, as one of my main rover designs is with a large 3.7m fuel tank that supplies large ships and orbital refueling stations from a mining outpost in a low gravity body. Assuming this will more or less work similarly on KSP2 I don't see much of a need for it. If you're operating at a higher gravity I think those operations would be so infrequent it wouldn't be worth the effort from the developers, at least for an initial release.

If that's the case they better have a drill that pierces the heavens

I'm all for a supergiant being orbited by a brown dwarf with it's own planets.

I think rating based on difficulty of getting it off the ground makes it hard to judge, so I'd rather have choosing an optimal landing spot to be part of the challenge and just rank by the mass of the asteroid for each planet or moon

Right now I have a propeller-driven UAV to be sent to Eve and take atmospheric measurements, so there's that. Also, we'll have more atmospheric bodies some of them probably without oxygen and there's a chance the devs could be inspired by space exploration in the past months and add a tiny double propeller that can be attached to a probe core and fly on Duna. If we're to get a good propeller aircraft gameplay they better have good automated cruise controls, it can already get tedious to cross the ocean on Kerbin on a jet, let alone doing so in a much slower propeller aircraft. Proper cockpits would be nice too, it's pretty silly to have cockpits that look like fighter jets for a propeller plane, not to mention unnecessary costly and heavy as they don't need to be pressurized.

Have a 1000 objects in orbit and watch the frame rate in the map screen. That isn't the engine's fault in any way, but some terribly written rendering routine that, given the game is apparently going to retire without fixing it I assume it might be a nightmarish piece of spaghetti code they didn't want to touch in fear of creating a lot of problems If the game's performance can be improved by hacking mono that shows the developers weren't using it properly, not that Unity's at fault; if mono's or unity's overall performance could be improved that way mono's developers would have patched it by now

I think this is needed. I want effective airplanes to reasonably resemble what real ones look like KSP's aerodynamic model is too easily exploited and trying to optimize planes eventually lead to designs that make no physical sense