regex

Why does it have to unlock? I've already done the science through play, I know how to aerobrake, I did it in my last save without the help. Yes, yes they are. Don't lock QOL features, just give them to us.

No. I like what Intercept is doing and I certainly don't need to engage your arguments because they're purely opinion.

Some of us just disagree with this entire thread after reading it.

I'm presuming you have no intention of gatekeeping my delta-V expenditures or manner of mission execution and that basic planetary stats don't change from save file to save file. With that said, what actionable data are you offering me then? A new QOL feature that shows how I can aerobrake? I'll just slap down a quicksave and try a couple times until I know how it works. Or I'll leverage my knowledge from previous saves and just do the thing. At that point you're just keeping me from a time-saving feature. Meanwhile, I've been doing actual science learning how to aerobrake.

I have my doubts. But to the point, I learn all that through trial and error right now anyway so what you're offering me is quality of life, and at the point where you take away QOL in order to gatekeep I'm going to call that dumb. It's like the pilot class in KSP1, probably the biggest example of just how stupid QOL gatekeeping is. Like that Kerbal had to gain experience and level up like we're playing D&D in order to hold a point in another direction? What the hell am I actually playing? That's totally fine, especially if resource concentrations are randomized between playthroughs. Hell, make it require multiple passes and have different resolutions like ScanSat, make slope and height maps too. The problem with maps though, is that they don't provide a lot of good actionable information unless they have high definition (resolution, zoom in) data and are also paired with a waypoint system where I can look at the flight screen and see where I want to land. Without those tools the map is nothing more than a pretty picture.

Ultimately that's my real gripe about science gatekeeping in this game, it's keeping me from defining my own space program. There's not a whole lot of choice in the tech tree, certain nodes have much more value than others (the ones with experiments in them) and stuff like aircraft and probes get short shrift or have to be unlocked after. It tends to force me into a certain style of play, even if I unlock every part node as I go. So yeah, learning about what atmosphere does by sending a probe every new game just isn't interesting to me. Let me send a damn plane on a pillar of fire where I want, when I want. Or whatever. Yes. Lately I've been considering each node in the tech tree being me directing industry where to ramp up first rather than "unlocking tech".

Or we could just assume that people did some actual science beforehand so I don't have to follow the exact same path to space every damn time. Honestly that's what we really need, a tech tree that can accommodate all sorts of playstyles, not some dumb rehash of American Space Program everyone thinks we should have.

I was wondering whether they had changed the starting positions of the planets, thanks.

I went ahead and read it again and I think the only real thing I got out of it was having maps, which have a dubious utility at best unless they're high definition and have other features added to support them. Everything else is like, why? Every time I start up a new game I have go through the same tedious rigamarole of learning how an atmosphere works? Well, no, I don't. I look at that gameplay and I wonder how providing the player with useful information isn't just going to end up being gatekeeping for the sake of gatekeeping. Likely coming with the resources part of the game because we'll need to scan for them. If they have an instant scanning mechanic I'm going to be right there with you with the torches and pitchforks though. It's not in "the spirit" of the game and we should NEVER expect kerbals to have to follow the same paths to space that humans have. Sending kerbals first is and always will be an option because kerbals are the ENTIRE reason this game is as popular as it is, they're the mascot and face of the game. So yes, if you want a rigorous science environment that follows human norms and safety standards you absolutely should have to turn to mods because the devs are never going to do that for you. That should have been apparent from the marketing material.

Did the Duna landing and return to orbit today. That turned out to be just about right. The lander fell over (not too surprisingly, the landing legs in this version of the game don't handle mass very well) but I made do, jetted it across the ground at a reasonable speed (think a parachute blew up) to a slope near the target and then got out for the samples. Once done I used the last of the landing fuel to slide off the slope and get as upright as possible before triggering the second stage. I transmitted some of the science to complete the mission and left these kids in orbit until the next transfer window. With that, I'm three nodes away from unlocking all of tier 2 science.

The KSP1 nodes went through some big improvements. KSP2 feels a lot like how KSP1 was early on.

It's pretty close to how the original maneuver nodes worked in KSP1 with some of the newer QOL features already added. Basically you lay down the node and add enough delta-V to get into the ballpark, then drag the node around until the ejection angle looks good, then open the node editor and focus on the target planet. This lets you adjust the node while watching the result. It's definitely a pain in the rear compared to, say. just typing in some values or adjusting things using a separate window. If you're an old hand at KSP1 it's nothing new, if you're not, well, welcome to KSP2 early access.

Started that mission to Duna. Pretty basic spacecraft in two launches (and intercepts, without an alarm clock I was inspecting PE times) but Duna is easy mode so there's really no need for extravagance. That janky lander needed to be lofted from Kerbin to avoid overheating, much higher launch profile than I normally use.

I don't disagree, my beef is with this ridiculous notion that Kerbals have to follow humanity's path, more specifically the United States' path, into space, especially when there are clear examples of other paths into space. Whatever the first game laid out isn't relevant, this is KSP2, and as a veteran of KSP1 I'm more than happy to see a different take on things.

It doesn't. All I have to do is look at Soviet advancement as opposed to U.S. advancement to realize that there are multiple paths to space. The Soviets lagged pretty far behind in solid rocket motor tech and instead invested heavily in hypergolics, and extensive engine testing to squeeze the best performance they could out of liquid engines. The U.S., meanwhile, brute-forced their way to space with solid rockets and inefficient engines (coupled with clever engineering to save mass), so much so that when they got their hands on a batch of old Soviet kerolox engines they were considered almost miraculous. I don't care at all whether Kerbals used methalox first, it's pretty clear to me we're not playing out the earliest days of their experimentation despite what any flavor text says. Maybe they tried a bunch of options before settling on methalox. Maybe the tier 1 science is their industry getting up to speed, not unlocking tech. There are plenty of explanations for that and I don't need to agonize over them. KSP2 clearly isn't about going from sounding rockets to Mercury to Apollo and beyond.

I don't care at all about the first game or parity with it. I'm playing KSP2 now.

No. I thought the entire tier 1 went very quickly too but then I looked back as I got deep into tier 2 and realized that it makes perfect sense for an experienced player to blow through that. My early game can literally be two launches, and that's fan-effing-tastic. Don't waste my time, the real game for me starts in tier 2 when I'm sending stuff to other planets. On the whole manned vs. probe argument, I don't actually care one way or the other but I don't think Kerbals should be held down by humanity's path forward. They're overly-enthusiastic aliens who started their orbital program with methalox engines and their entire concept (and view of the consequences) of "danger" is clearly much, much different than ours.

The time warp limit being removed must be in very new versions of KSP1, I don't remember that. Back in the day I'd often launch a satellite into high orbit that I could use for heavy time warp to avoid the scene change to the Tracking Station (not sure how much more efficient that was vOv). That might actually be a good way to do it in KSP2 because apparently just going to the tracking station retains the current time warp limit, you can just switch craft. Do they have tutorials for transferring to another planet? Apparently not, I just looked. Back in the day when we didn't have tutorials knowledge just got passed around the forums and you'd learn that way. I think we're way past that initial point and doing a Hohmann is just ... second nature so no one's really talking about how to do it correctly. KSP2 also kept one of the best QOL features from KSP1: the ability to move the maneuver node along the orbit. See, before they added that feature you had to plop down a node and hope it was in the correct spot. The entire reason I wrote (more properly salvaged and rewrote) PreciseNode back in the day was to give myself the ability to change the time of the maneuver and also see the ejection angle of the node. That allowed me to use tools like Alex Moon's Transfer Planner or KSP TOT. These days, even with the time warp limits, creating a transfer is quite easy. You can just slap down a node by eyeball, add enough delta-V to feel good about it, drag it along the orbit to get a better ejection angle, and then fine-tune as needed. That entirely depends on the timeframe for when you do a transfer. Check out the Launch Window Planner, you'll notice if you set the earliest departure time to year 1, day 1 the best transfer you can get will be 2442m/s. Now set the earliest departure to year 4, day 1 and see that you can do it for 1609m/s. Fast forward another three years to year 7, day 1 and you can do it for 1541m/s. And finally, in year 11 it goes up to 1974m/s. The trip planner is giving you your best chance of making the transfer no matter when you go. This is why dedicated programmatic tools will always be better than a simple subway map (what the trip planner actually is).

I have never found this kind of information actually useful and practical in the game and I think a big reason for that is that it needs to be very high-definition (because at low-definition the eyeball is a much better judge of landing spot) and paired with a waypoint system. Without that it's just another screen of useless data.

It exists, what of it? E: Oh, is this one of those dumb, vapid "gO pLaY SaNdBoX moDe" arguments? How about no. I enjoy progression gameplay, I just don't think it has to involve brain-dead "immersion" mechanics or unnecessary detail.

The missions are fine and all but I decided to do a little self-guidance before heading off to Duna and sent an atmospheric probe to Eve, one of my favorite early-game things to do. The music here is chef's kiss, I'm seriously considering an autonomous return vehicle to get all that sweet science I couldn't transmit.

On the contrary, if it's copied it means you really don't have to worry about losing it.

Nice, thank you!

Why would I do that? I enjoy progression in my gameplay.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure you don't ever have to interact with that blinking button and you only have to open the science window to transmit based on my (admittedly limited) science mode play. The only other science actions you ever need to do is right-clicking kerbals (or, I presume, the sample gathering rover arm) for ground science. Quite frankly I think that's brilliant because "science" is just currency recording where I've been and what I've done. It doesn't ever need to be anything else. That's really boiling down the KSP gameplay to "build, fly, repeat", to get out there and do things, to push further. IMO it's a great take on the formula and because it's not some front-and-center mechanic which requires you to know the ins-and-outs of KSP in order to leverage it works much better as an impetus for the naturally timid to go outside of Kerbin SOI. Sorry to disappoint you bub.