Vl3d

Also this should be posted here: How about this? I swear I could do a much better job at landing that limp baby than this noob.

After so much time I found the video that shows some of the things I had in mind when writing this initial post (the cliff jumping at the end especially):

Also Wanderers by Erik Wernquist was one of the inspirations for the KSP2 cinematic trailer.

Imagine something like this, but landing a spaceship on another planet.

I think this post is very good and it should be republished as it's own topic. It makes a good point about Space Engine. Later edit: although, if I think about it more.. does Space Engine manage time (warp) and syncing multiple vessels / simulated processes in the same universe? Also does it have sub-millimeter resolution? Also, as in KSP, I really feel weather and seasons would be truly revolutionary for the game / simulation.

What do you think about the Starfield features revealed by the gameplay videos and photos - as compared to KSP2? I'm not comparing genres - only "apples to apples", things that KSP also has: ship building features, base building, celestial body environment, ship IVA and third person HUD features. Also remember: Starfield players cannot actively pilot their ships to a planet's surface Ship Building (with details here & here): Base building and resources (details here): Exploration & environment (details about planets here): Ship IVA / flight deck / HUD (but no seamless spaceflight): Clearly KSP2 is doing something amazing that technically has never been done before (even before speaking of the multiplayer aspects). "An update on Kerbal Space Program 2 and how we're enabling players to travel from planet A orbiting star B to planet C orbiting star D, continuously, without any loading screens, pauses, faked out transitions, "warp drives", or other trickery. We're simulating a multi-light-year spanning 3D volume at a sub-millimeter level of resolution, and enabling players to travel to any point in that space if they can build a ship capable of making the journey. Unprecedented in gaming." - Paul Furio, the Senior Engineering Manager at Private Division https://www.linkedin.com/posts/paul-furio_kerbal-space-program-2-episode-5-interstellar-activity-6920089169021014016-J_5I

Yes to progressively unlocking (visual) information about celestial bodies. Yes to having something interesting to discover around every corner. No to procedurally generated boring empty celestial bodies. The thing that motivated me the most to play KSP1 was the curiosity related to discovering anomalies. I was very disappointed after some time.

Just allow the option to play IVA with integrated UI and map view in the instruments panels. There's no need to make it more busy, just show it on the flight deck.

I fully support the idea of having useful and actionable science with reports per celestial body and biome. Some science was useful in KSP1, like testing Eve's and Duna's atmosphere to plan reentry. But I don't think people really have the patience to do the math using the experimental values. Better would be: remote observations (land/space telescope) + send probe, do tests, do science -> fill some part of celestia body knowledge repository + get useful alerts to help you build appropriate missions. The science should help the engineering. When you pick a landing spot and you did the science for that biome it should tell you: ideal atmospheric braking altitude is X, set parachute deployment parameters to Y, landing drag coefficient or how much fuel needed to land Z, how much fuel needed to get to orbit, risk of storms, pressure and temperature should really be important for mission survival, corrosive environment etc. I mean, yeah, trial and error is fun for testing, but we should get some useful advice from scientists before landing there just to find out we can't leave with your Kerbals. Science should help prevent failure. And it should be in-game. I spent so many hours browsing the Wiki...

Have to add this "bad boy" of a season trailer here. I want to build every ship in KSP2!

Actually it was "Outro".

Square orbits are useful in a patched conics system?

Yes to tethers, yes to ladder assisted spacewalks.

I was close enough. Congrats KSP team, thank you NASA!

I agree @intelliCom

Except for @t_v @Bej Kerman previous posts keep pointing out what "we can't have". I don't like this attitude. I just ask that you imagine how cool weather effects on planets would be and how much more interesting, beautiful and educational they would make the game. If not simulated, at least make them visual.

I don't agree with the last statement. Simulations can be simple, efficient and game-enhancing. Temperature, atmospheric pressure, biomes, terrain friction - these exist in KSP1 and make the game more interesting. Rain, snow, clouds - can be visual effects without physics Wind, storms with lightning and thunder - visuals + simple localized vector fields interacting with the drag physics. EMP effects should be added to the game. Seasons, climates - calculated with astronomic values, mostly visual and have probability to trigger localized events. Wind, flooding and snow weight would impact buildings also - it was confirmed that buildings are rigid body arrays, it's just an extension of the weight + drag physics. I would also hope for destructible terrain, solar wind and radiation. As a last thought - I think players should not be so quick to judge what is possible to implement and what is not. That decision is up to the devs. We're just talking about the possibility of having cool features.

Fine, I'll settle for rain, snow, wind, clouds, storms with lightning and thunder, seasons, climates. Wind, flooding and snow weight would impact buildings also. But all this with classic water AND other materials like methane etc. Should make for some very interesting planets.

Materials density, viscosity and temperature -> ground / liquid / gas temperature transfer -> evaporation / condensation / sublimation -> rain and snow -> surface liquid flow -> atmospheric mass movement and interaction with terrain -> currents and turbulence -> wind -> clouds and storms -> seasons -> climates. Wind, flooding and snow weight would impact buildings also. I want all this.

What changes / improvements he wants for the VAB/SPH construction UI, orbital construction in KSP2, rocket / craft versioning, what new parts he wants for rover / mech? Also maybe ask him about part software modules, as talked about below:

Love it!

It's Fr... 2 months since the last video featuring the game.

... the limp phenomenon.

So for me personally the marketing campaign is useful only in the amount of new information it gives me about the game. That's why I'm not satisfied with just knowing "it's coming". I want to know more about it. I can only hold this perspective. The sneaky interview in the Matt Lowne episode is great PR. But it still tells me nothing about the game. I'm at square 2019. I guess we really have to wait to play the game in order to decide if it's better than amogusz.