intelliCom

You mean Moon Man? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Man_(2022_film)

LOOOORE ! ! ! !

As much as I appreciate you saying please, Intercept aren't a crew of jesters dancing to our every whim. Audio design is very underrated, and I'm glad they provided some insight into the process.

*ahem*...

As much of an advocate as I am for scientific accuracy, breaking the rules is done best by people who know the rules to begin with, and Intercept definitely seems to know the rules. Yes, KSP is perhaps the most scientifically accurate space-related game to ever be made. That doesn't mean it can't use artistic license. The existence of the Kerbals alone is already a huge assumption if all that's on your mind is "its gotta be scientifically accurate". Think of it this way; by having a green skybox, it'll entice people who don't know to search up whether green stars exist, and they'll learn that they don't exist. It's not like KSP is going to have an EmDrive.

Actually, you can carry over your purchase with the same account, just like Steam. I've carried my Minecraft across four computers now.

I don't think we have any specific news on this, unfortunately. But with mods like FAR existing, it surely must exist somehow in KSP2 especially given the totally not exploitative developments for KSP 1's aero model.

True. After all, the planets in the sky have different colour within the earth's atmosphere compared to outside of it. However, it's so negligible that red, yellow, white, and blue stars are practically going to be the same in both situations. I guess I should really say "Atmosphere isn't a significant factor". Spacescifi implied that the atmosphere was the reason why stars are different colours.

I recall robotic parts from Breaking Ground being explicitly removed. Making History parts would seem like a strange thing to remove. I recall medium (1.875m) still being a size class. If they're looking to diversify the part set, it doesn't make any sense why Making History would be removed. Making it DLC would be especially strange considering just how big KSP 2 is going to get. Minimum spec is completely unknown. I predict we'll see the minimum spec a month prior to EA release (so January 30th at the latest). I recommend looking at KSP2's store page for a specs list. Please note that "more refined" does not mean "runs easier", but likely means that performance is not wasted (e.g., single-threaded physics on a multi-threaded CPU, memory leaks, etc.). KSP 2 is likely more demanding than KSP1 from a graphics perspective. I recommend taking whatever frame rate you're getting on KSP 1 and dividing it by 3. (e.g., 30 FPS --> 10 FPS). Worst case scenario is that KSP2 won't run at all. IdeaPads are great as budget work laptops, but definitely not ideal for gaming. I recommend you get a gaming laptop, or- if you want to maximise what you get out of your budget- build a desktop PC out of individual components. If you decide to build a PC, I recommend using PCPartPicker to help you, as well as watching multiple guides to ensure you're not wasting money. http://pcpartpicker.com/ If you'd like, I can help you sort out a suitable parts list on a certain budget. Remember, for any game and specs, check benchmarks. Always check benchmarks. If you wait a bit, KSP2 will get some benchmarks of its own, so you could choose a suitable laptop or build the best PC for you based on those benchmarks. That doesn't make any sense. Has there been any formerly Early Access game that has done this? Buy KSP2 through Steam, and it doesn't matter what computer you have. (I don't know how this works for other launchers, but Steam is very trustable.) As long as you log back into the same account, your purchases are eternal and can be carried over to whatever computer you have.

No, because stars cannot be pink or green. It would simply be a pink or green light, not necessarily associated with fusion energy. But as for a bright pink or green light being a sign of intelligent life? Maybe. Then again, copper burns as green, so don't take any flash of pink or green as automatically being aliens.

Atmosphere isn't a factor. They look like this in space too. Red stars are always red, blue stars are always blue. If the atmosphere was affecting it, wouldn't they be changing colours? Because, again, you're not close enough to it for it to burn out your eyes. Far enough away, and it appears 'less bright' than it would, revealing whatever colour it outputs more. If you were in the same solar system as the star, the star would probably appear just as bright and white as ours. That's not what I said. Colours do not change by location, atmosphere. Red stars are always red, blue stars are always blue. They do look brighter when you are closer to them. Bright enough, and they might as well be pure white because it's that bright for the human eye. A "red dwarf" would appear red in our sky. A "white supergiant" would appear white in our sky. If we looked at the solar system from far away, our sun would appear yellow, but only from far away. Please refer to the graph below. Note "temperature", the hotter it is, the bluer it is, the colder it is, the redder it is.

*Armchair scientist talk; if wrong, disregard* The reason distant stars appear as colours between red, yellow, white, and then blue in our night sky is because they're distant enough that they don't burn your eyeballs out. It's not necessarily an optical illusion. Yes, they are technically 'white' since they emit all light, but IIRC, they emit more light in a particular part of the visible spectrum than another part of it due to their temperature. The colours, IIRC, are within the kelvin scale, where colder stars would appear more orange, while hotter stars are more white-blue. The colours shown below are the colours of every star in the universe. There are no pink stars or green stars. Also, for Sci-Fi (rant warning)...

"Hi there KSP forum, and welcome to episode #492 of "KSP architecture". Today we will be talking about this other tent that Bobkin Kerman put up..."

Mini-Mag Orion. Would be an interesting way to use Orion pulse propulsion with later-game magnetic nozzles.

So, from what I can tell, this is really only useful for cases of high lag? Is it supposed to be common for quicksaving to take a long time?

OK, I'm apparently talking too much stupid stuff here, and probably won't learn anything by trying to discuss it further. I'll just accept that this proposed system works somehow and move on. Sorry if I made a mess of the conversation by not knowing how computers work. EDIT: Re-reading what OP said, I'm interpreting it as just quicksaving but more nerdy? Again, sorry for not having the technical know-how here, but I fail to see the benefit of a quicksave with extra steps. Is it like attempting a quicksave if performance is really bad?

Cleanup routine could be as simple as deleting the oldest save so only the three latest saves are present. Doesn't seem so hard at a glance, but feel free to explain. Also, 'conditional' means checking various statistics in the computer's performance to decide whether to autosave or not. Again, seems more complex than a timed autosave.

Probably better to name the upper stage something and call the entirely new lower stage(s) something different to be less misleading. Rocket names can be real damn weird.

How different is the... - Atlas D to the Atlas V? - Thor-Delta to the Delta IV? - Saturn I to Saturn V? - Ariane I to Ariane V? ...and so on, as per title. Does the latest version carry anything over from the very first? If so, what?

I accept that my technical knowledge is lacking. But it is still far easier to implement and debug code for regular autosaving instead of condition-specific autosaving.

I feel like you're just describing an overcomplicated autosave. It would take far less processing to just have it perform autosaves regularly, by an interval of the player's choice. (E.g., between 5 and 30 minutes) Also, stockpiling a number of autosaves instead of just having one would be great, so you can fall back on an earlier one in case the latest autosave is inconvenient. Edit: Misunderstood OP. What I think it's supposed to be is a way of doing a manual save in the case that performance is completely awful. Then again, such a situation is rare, so I don't know how important such a saving system would be.

I recall a previous clip that depicts an extra planet way beyond Eeloo though. It had an orbital path, so I don't believe it's a star. I really do want a Kuiper belt object analogue. Would love Haumea in KSP2, would make for a good challenge for an early update, and probably pretty easy to implement.

Not so sure about that one. The points on the star can easily be done with mirror symmetry, and the new orthographic grid views showcased a while ago. That is, if it is in the game on release. If it's not the points on the star, you might be referring to the tailfins on the star perhaps? Here's hoping the symmetry isn't as inconsistent and KSP1's. Admittedly, I didn't notice that at first, but... F I N A L L Y ! Jesus. The sheer euphoria of seeing the prefix "Pre" getting Kraken'd out of here is too good. Let's hope it's not false advertising.

To @jastrone's point, part limits can be fun but are too arbitrary in KSP1. Beyond Kerbin, limitations on part counts (maybe even part types) should be restricted by what the player has available. You shouldn't be building xenon probes without a xenon fuel factory on your colony.

The time goblins. How do I stop my cat from burning up when it aerobrakes at Jool?