Tw1

I don't want any early release, except for the possibilities for commentary, feedback, and then modification. None of this encouraging the practice of releasing rushed, incomplete games. Especially not if they can afford the development time, and can avoid any "crunch time";

This is what I'd love to see a KSP2 KSC look more like

This I strongly disagree with. It's true, it won't happen, but you can still find an optimal approach which suits the most. For example, they could tidy the parts up, while still keeping colour and design flare that makes the originals distinctive. These days, it's harder to spot specific parts in the parts list because the all look the same. I miss the quirkiness and fun they used to have.

Why are the revamp parts so bland? The new doors are cool but those textures... Please stop.

One other thing, while I remember: The Mun's crater distribution seemed like it had room for improvement to me. This time around, I would like to see more differentiation between the nearside and farside. I wouldn't mind if they kept the steep mountains at the poles though. (And if they kept very similar landforms near the prograde point I would be surprised and very happy as I can build a third iteration of my "city" there, but that's just me, and I'm not actually expecting that.)

I don't think all of these are inherently bad, but that's not the point. I agree that these don't seem appropriate for KSP. Personally, I don't mind the shake KSP1 does in high G, but that's togglable.

Enough said?

Like, Gosh, now we actually have to put it into words, that we like or agree with something. Like this comment, from Dman979, which really brings back the memories. .... Now I wish I'd started a thread, or updated a fanwork at this point. It's nice when they get attention.

Radical suggestion: When a kerbal dies, a ghost pops up for a while, like when a pikmin is killed in pikmin, and vanishes in the direction of kerbin. IDK. could be cooler than just *poof* I do hope they work on the kerbals from the demo and trailer. The green looked wrong. IMHO, the texture replacer standard pack has a good range of skin tones which look right on kerbals. Also, with the space center - I suspect that having flat clear ground encourages people to experiment and build contraptions. Nothing to hit, means you can fly any nonsense around as much as you like. So I think they should keep some area around launch facilities like that.

*Old timer voice* Back in my day, likes was called rep, and almost no one even knew where the button was. Earning was real something. Kids these days, with their likes and easy to click buttons, and cleaner, better webpages...

May I bring this back? You know you've played too much ksp when -Your Dad is describing how to navigate their driveway, you must turn sharply, but not too sharply, and you think, huh, just like judging reentry altitudes -You pick up a pie, think "this is shaped like a reentry shield", and "fly" it in your hand into the microwave. Complete with imagined reentry streams. -At the beach at night, with a torch in hand, you point it at the ground, and are reminded of night side planet landings, and proceed to simulate a landing with the torch.

I've done something like this without the robotics before. It used strong reaction wheels to rock and bounce about over the surface with precision, as alternative to a rover.

I'm quite liking some of the the ones people have dragged up. It's like highlights from people's time in KSP

A donut planet. This will likely never happen due to some technical limitation or another, but imagine it... Actually, imagine a couple, with different relative rotational axes, each more physically unrealistic than the last... (Ok, i don't think this should be in it. Would make a cool mod though.)

The first thing I will try is to see if there is anything like the old ladderforce effect.

Welcome. I hope to see you here quite a bit.

I made this years back for a fanfic that I swear I'll go back and finish one day.... This is the most suitable from the story, but Idk if such a cartoony style would fit in well. If it's just screenshots, I took this really nice one of Eve, and have others of architecture I've made in the game. Also mostly for fanfic... Seriously though, if screenshots, like I'm seeing in this thread are something you're after, I wouldn't know where to stop. I probably have thousands of cool ones by now. Must.. resist.. urge to share more photos... (should any of these catch your eye, open in new tab, standard imgur technique of deleting the last m of the url will get you the full size one) Oh, there's also this one: Goes against the no logo rule, but that's an in game logo there, so...

I would not know there to start. Every mission I complete is the result of dozens of tests, many failures which must be quicksaved around, and glitches which must be fought. When attempting some stunt with unconventional vehiles, it's not unheard of that I'll end up cheating a kerbal with spare parts in for a repair job, or should something I never imagined go wrong goes wrong.

Agreed. Minmus is my favorite planet, and I am still a little apprehensive about what might happen to it in KSP2, but this looks pretty good. Especially if the sparkle works as described. I hope the makers of KSP2 do not stray to far from this. Nice work ksp1 people. This looks great.

Today is 909 day. If you don't use the Terrier engine in one project today, you're missing out. Also, I tried to start a kindergarten on the Mun, but my injectors keep exploding.

Similarly, I want very little. I don't particularly want anything like a precursor race hinted at, more than the fact that some artifacts exist. That's would be another thing that takes away from the core thing of the game - building, flying and exploring. I especially want at least one of the new solar systems to be completely devoid of any sort of structure that could have possibly been built. If anything, they could put in little hints about the nature of the kerbals like they do already - that they are excitable, prone to being a little silly sometimes, the sort of thing that is already in some of the flavour text. Anything they do include should be vague, and open to a wide range of interpretation. I would be OK with some vague references to lore that has developed and sort of been embraced by the community, like the Kraken, jokes that Dres does not exist, or maybe even a reference to a "Kerbin City" after that group project that got part way done. But only if such does not contradict the vague and genericness thing I mentioned above.

I'm still a little nervous and worried about what they might have done to the original planets. I want to experience the familiar places in new ways, not imposters that are the same colour and size. Upgraded, more detailed geology, sure, but I want to see the same character, and seem like it's the same planet from ksp1 to 2. And we've got weird planets, like Minmus with it's distinctive slopes and flats, like the Moho moehole, which make those place special. I hope they don't get carried away and remove those's best parts. I guess we'll see.

I agree, it's still pretty arbitrary. I also agree with the point that it should avoid railroading, which would very much be counter to the spirit of KSP. Perhaps, rather than earning science points from experiments, they could be earned by testing predecessor parts in certain environments. For example, the Lv-t30, with its lack of vectoring could perhaps be considered a predecessor to the lv-t45. Perhaps the spark could be a predecessor to the even smaller engine. Just examples, not actually suggesting this as a progression. If you understand how a part functions in different environments, you can build a better, more versatile one. Perhaps some combination of harder to get to environments, and using more "advanced" engines would result in you earning more points to wards the next part in that line. My concerns with this type tech tree are: -is it just getting in the way? I hope it would lead to a natural progression. It allows people the possibility of designing specific missions to test tech, should the so wish. -will it be too limiting? It's more restrictive to which parts you get next, but makes a lot more sense, and could increase immersion. -does it make enough sense? Would people understand what to do? -possibly less modular as a piece of game design. The specific nature of it would make it harder to sort parts into groups, and harder to integrate mod parts. But I think it could still be done based on parts shared features. I would very much like to see the current experiment type science devorced from the tech tree system. Science could just boost funding, reputation, and be there for its own sake. I've never been a huge fan of the tech tree. It is too prominent a game play mechanic imho, distracting from the actual space stuff I came to do. I'm fine with most parts being unlocked before you do much interplanetary stuff. I think there's better ways for the game to measure your success.

I would prefer less of other space programs personally. It's more fun when I'm the Pioneer, taking the kerbals on their first steps. If there are already kerbals all over outer space, then you don't get to have those moments. That is why I, (and I suspect others) Headcanonn the other space endevours as secondary, following on after you've done the pioneering work. It's more fun that way. I would prefer them not to go before us in KSP2. It would be disappointing to think you're stepping on an unvisited planet, only to find out kerbals are already there. Also, if they are managing all this space stuff for themselves, what did they need me for? Flesh 'em out, sure, could be cool, especially if things could go both ways, with you contracting supply missions and stuff to them. But let's not have them damper the feeling of settling out into the unknown.