NoMrBond

*pinchy pinchy*

Possibly via a directory like Flags are currently, i.e. drop a correct (size/aspect/format) image in .../KerbalSpaceProgram/GameData/Squad/Flags/ and it appears in-game .../KerbalSpaceProgram/GameData/Squad/Suits/ perhaps?

Philae needs tiny claws! *pinchy pinchy*

Would it be possible for the Jool clouds to get some depth? I mean, the new look way is way better than the legacy immobile green but a bit of shadow/height on the cloud features would really give it something extra

Hi Dr Nate, Thanks for keeping us in the loop with clear communication Look forward to hearing what you and the team have been up to again soon Cheers, NMB.

If they stick with PhysX they might drop in the APEX Destruction extension (unless that's baked in now like APEX Cloth was?) Blast library, with the release date now being 2021 we should see at least PhysX 4.1 because Unity 2019.3 is out already with it. Perhaps they'll go for DOTS + HAVOK and we'll get stateful physics (I hope it does), then using the Cloth module on-top for body deformation becomes a possibility So maybe?

A basic split of fuel types should work, since you're going to have multiple fuel types later on KSP2 should introduce them throughout the game on to get players used to the idea (and also that you need to bring the right fuel for the chosen propulsion/engine/s) A super simplified Hypergol & LF (RP-1) & Cryo (LH2) with Ox staying the same throughout may work. Perhaps being LOx and applicable everywhere, which is a bit of a stretch but would cover basically everything up to almost current era with some research progression. Maybe you want to go a step further and give Hypergolics their own oxidiser (engines and bipropellant RCS using the hypergol F/O, and monopropellant RCS using the hypergol-fuel), but that leaves hypergolic oxidiser fairly lonesome with little other commonality. Can you live with a semi-orphan resource/chemical, or tolerate oxidiser commonality? But what about mechanics, does stuff boil off, or freeze, what are your reasons for each fuel and what game purpose does it serve (if Ox being LOx is going to boil off, then you can argue to keep Hypergolic Ox which doesn't boil off since it occupies a game niche rather than become redundant). Need to consider what works at a game level without making things a chore as well, but a lot of that could be hidden behind difficult (i.e. abstracted fuel/ox like present at low difficultly, with more complexity as difficulty increases, but that's added complexity plus all that needs balancing)

Take the time to make it the best it can be I mean, don't Duke Nukem your timeline But do make the game you're proud to have your name on ..also please inject the next KSP2 dev video straight into my veins, the last one has almost worn off

Awesome, I wonder what engine enhancements and new parts we'll see to enable this? i.e. ability to orbit asteroids, tiny surface harpoons (Philae mini-claw?), potential new science instruments (Alice/OSIRIS/VIRTIS/MIRO/CONSERT/RSI/ROSINA/MIDAS/COSIMA/GIADA/RPC & APXS/CIVA/CONSERT/COSAC/MUPUS/Ptolemy/ROLIS/ROMAP/SD2/SESAME)

Not even a 1050Ti, the lower 1050 version which will be something like three years old by the time KSP2 actually comes out Then consider that the 1050 is beaten in most benches by the even older (circa 2015) mainstream 960 by 10-20%, which will be something like six years old by the time KSP2 comes out This doesn't seem like a particularly high bar?

I get that DOTS wasn't included in a production release until recently but it was shown off starting in late 2018 with Megacity, which was later released as a demo project around March 2019 so the ECS / DOTS framework has been kicking around for a while even if it wasn't considered production ready Hopefully one of the KSP2 Feature Videos will go under-the-hood on the engine and physics, since physics plays such a large part in the game (sadly nothing much new out of PAX East)

Hopefully they're using DOTS (and HAVOK stateful physics too)

Like? A hypothesis is something to be tested (to destruction if necessary, as this one was), not a puppy or a flavour of ice-cream. I am open to the possibility that advances in science, materials and engineering might one day provide a answer, as has frequently been the case throughout history

You're citing one failed experiment as a complete and irrevocably closed door for an entire area of study A single hypothesis regarding metH2/mH2 meta-stability didn't work out, so science moves on to the next, like so; Jeffrey M. McMahon at the Department of Physics & Astronomy tested Diamond, β-Sn and Cs-IV types of met-H2 in 2017, and found that Cs-IV type stayed metastable until 250GPa while the later conformations started breaking down ~300GPa. While these particular forms are probably not practical but forms which are metastable were discovered. The paper is called "On the possibility of metastable metallic hydrogen" by Craig M. Tenney, Keeper L. Sharkey, Jeffrey M. McMahon; arXiv:1705.04900 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

Your position requires believing that our current understanding of metH2/mH2 is both perfect and complete and no further advancement will ever be made, which in my view makes the comparison to the stated cases entirely apt Have we made all possible forms of metallic hydrogen, do we understand all those forms completely, in every permutation and condition? No, so on what basis can we steadfastly and absolutely extrapolate from our extremely limited understanding of metallic hydrogen that it is not and will always be impossible?