regex

I'll grab a pitchfork whenever I damn well please, I don't need to be "allowed". I really hope to be "wowed" by the science update. I know I'm probably not going to be overly impressed by the mechanics based based on what I can see from the released screenshots so hopefully we'll see improvements in graphics, performance, and (good lord, please) driving on a surface.

The new re-entry effects videos are honestly "bland" and look super-stylized. Where are the particles streaming off the heat shield? I hope they really are "work in progress" and not the final product. E: Although I should say that the sound design, as always, is amazing. I just wish the graphics matched the crackling and varying "whooshes" in the sound.

Yes, it improves how launches look. Right now the clamps look stupid and low-fidelity.

Rockets go up so why do KSP's launch clamps go down? Those are more properly "hold-down arms" rather than launch clamps but because we don't have specific launch pads for specific vehicles (and the actual clamps aren't nearly as exciting as hold-down arms) in KSP they do double-duty. Small detail really. But also, the models in KSP are really low-fidelity and look bad. hahaha why are you so mad?

Unfortunately they're probably never going to let us compress all the negative space around the tapes. The big problem with the UI is just how much space it takes up and how much that space can be reduced.

I'm talking about launch clamps, not a damn tower. All I'm saying is that the clamps should look and act like actual, real world clamps, which they don't. At all. Even at the basest, abstract level. You literally have no idea what you're arguing against here.

Yeah, the new screenshots looked amazing. I'm hoping we'll finally have unobtrusive tree LOD pop-in, but I'm not holding my breath.

I beg to differ, I think they go against the new technical style we have in KSP2. For KSP1? Sure, everything's trash cans and garbage. In KSP2 we have new tech. No, like literally watch launches. See how the clamps operate, how they keep a rocket off the pad, how they swing away when the launch happens. KSP's clamps are totally wrong.

No stock LS. I guaran-effing-tee you it won't be trivial at all to modify it if Intercept implements a life support system.

Several times, but usually I just over-prepare so I never run into that sort of situation. That does incur a hefty mass penalty but I'm always willing to pay to ensure I bring them back home. In LS scenarios without kerbal death I'd just end up deleting the craft so I could simulate their death but that robs me of the chance to come back at a later date and revive the hardware. No "emergent gameplay" there. Yes, which is why we're probably never getting life support in this game to begin with. No one wants to actually plan a mission in-depth.

They're ugly and they don't operate like anything in the real world. Watch some actual launches, tons of different solutions and they all look far better than what we have in the game.

That's just terrible planning on your part. Git gud.

This. Honestly KSP's launch clamps are just terrible after playing with FASA.

I don't see how having a limit based on life support removes this emergent gameplay. Imagine trying to mount a rescue mission with a time limit. That's some real stakes, not "I'll just leave them in orbit until I feel like it" easy-mode. [citation needed] please.

It seems pretty crazy to me that planning to have enough ablator or a good reentry trajectory, or to have enough fuel to land or brake before reentry, and the consequences of not taking that into account, are considered perfectly fine and reasonable situations where kerbals can be allowed to die, but not adding enough life support supplies or taking into account mission time is considered "too hard" or unforgiving. People happily kill kerbals wholesale with crazy contraptions but having to make sure they're well-fed or able to breath is apparently a real burden.

You don't need to worry, they're never going to add something like life support to the vanilla game. Most of the dangers of spaceflight, and the planning for those contingencies, are completely glossed over.

Then why have it at all? It's a wasted feature at that point.

And I'll settle for far less. The problem is there's very little planning or pondering in this game and it doesn't look like it's going to deliver all that much in the future. If I can subvert my life support with a probe core instead of actual planning then that's not really a feature I'm interested in.

It sounds like a great argument for it IMO, but maybe I just want some actual difficulty in this game.

I used to play with TAC LS, great mod. A bit early in the modding scene but it did the job well. While I would definitely love an in-game porkchop plot and proper shipbuilding tools, all we'd really need for LS is an alarm clock, a feature that got introduced to vanilla KSP1 a bit later in life but was there as a mod since LS was a thing. I'm pretty sure it'll be reintroduced since it's so helpful for gameplay. For a lot of this stuff you really don't have to worry too much. KSP's small solar system and performant parts mean you can be pretty sloppy all around and add additional mass as needed. LS doesn't take up a whole bunch of mass so you can pile on extra with little care. Ultimate precision in time shouldn't be something you strive for anyway due to how imprecise KSP's gameplay actually is. The game trailers merrily kill kerbals all the time, this should be nothing new. They are meant to suffer, it's their lot in life. Clearly you've never actually played KSP 1 with a consumable life support mod. Set appropriate alarms (an alarm clock should be considered a feature of the LS "package") and allow for slop in missions by packing extra supplies which KSP graciously makes very easy by virtue of the "easy mode" solar system. Besides, as I understand most players just run one interplanetary mission at a time so a lot of this is moot. ugh, I'm sorry, this just sounds like sidelining the whole idea of life support. There are zero consequences in that scenario. There's literally no point in having it if you can subvert it that easily.

I was asked my thoughts, not to speculate what would be fun for others.

What would the joke be if it were one? KSP, historically and even now, misses in so many areas on making spaceflight "spaceflight" and while I'm pretty much over it, and willing to let this new crew cook to see what they come up with, if we're talking things that I want in the game I'm almost always going to fall on the side of making things more realistic, or at the very least true to life.

I want actual life support in the game so that if it runs out the kerbals die and the mission ends. I don't think it needs to be overly complicated but at a minimum I'd like to see two resources. One for "air" or whatever, which can be recycled early in the tech tree, and another for "food" which can't be recycled or generated in situ until much further down the tech tree. But in all honesty I'll take pretty much anything so long as it doesn't have a stupid name like "snacks". I think life support, and the very real consequences thereof, add a great element to mission planning and execution. Not having it is kind of disrespectful of the perils of space travel.

We have burn during warp my brother in Kerbol, we can consume craft resources during timewarp. Have you never managed several flights with TACLS in KSP1? It's not really that hard, it usually just requires more on-orbit mass and an alarm clock.

Hands down: PROCEDURAL FUEL TANKS. Alternatively, compress all the clutter in the fuel tanks tab down to switchable shape tanks which can accept any kind of fuel so that we can have aesthetic variety in our hydrogen tanks (for instance). PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do something about the fuel tanks tab, let us build more interesting fuel tank constructions without using heavy aesthetic garbage parts. Life support, at least two resources, one of which should be recyclable and the other which can eventually (far into the tech tree) be provided via ISRU (greenhouse, etc...). Fix the issues with rovers/wheels: smooth driving over terrain, no throwing my stuff up into the air randomly (or what, after 1km of driving?), more torque (or parts to provide additional torque like transmissions) so that larger rovers can actually drive up a slope. Let me build a big 'ol damn rockhound! An extended maneuver node editor with the ability to enter/see actual numbers (more than just the total) and choose conics solution number so that we can plan further than three SOIs. EVA construction, especially the ability to add struts. Configurable in-flight UI. Better plane cockpits. I want to be able to build an AN-2 without mods. Prop engines. Weather. An alarm clock.