Bartybum

It really depends on how it'd be implemented. They could: Tilt Kerbin, but leave the orbits of the Mun and Minmus the same relative to Kerbin's ecliptic plane, or they could also rotate the Mun's and Minmus' planes to keep them the same relative to Kerbin. I was more thinking about the first one, but you're right in that the second option would only affect interplanetary transfers. In either case, I think the way Kerbin's set up now is good, and makes the game accessible enough from a learning standpoint.

It provides a lot of freedom and doesn't end up bogging down the game. User-activated syncing is the way to go in my opinion.

yeaaaaahhhh look no. they make games because they need money to live a life.

Damn, I like some small amounts of motion blur

Regarding the simulation stop button, from a QoL perspective why does this issue even exist to begin with? Why does it not just perform a single calculation the moment the Snacks GUI is opened? This is the only thing so far that's stopped me wanting to install the mod

Moving aside all discussion of available developer resources and whatnot (Assuming LS is optional of course, when there are those who don't want to have to deal with it) Regarding LS on the ship scale, I'm really in favour of a simple LS system ala the Snacks! mod, where you have food, waste/fertilizer, growers and recyclers. To me it's exactly the same as needing to carry solar panels to generate electricity. The complexity really comes along when you start thinking on the scale of installations. I really like the idea of having to personally fly a resource supply line with a capable ship, then being able to automate it to fly at optimal dV windows (think porkchop plots). By endgame, having tens of installations is going to be extremely tedious if even if you only have to fly a single resupply mission per station per year, so automated colony management is key imo.

I'd think that this would make sense (the huge diameters are only hypothetical, just to show the pattern): 0.625 1.25 1.875 2.5 3.75 5 7.5 10 15 20 30 From 1.25m onwards, tank diameter doubles every second tank i.e. 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40, etc. It's essentially exponential growth, with one size halfway between

I mean, I'd be perfectly happy with Kerbin axial tilt being toggleable

I think I'd be fine with one exoplanet being found to be hollow/artificial through seismic experiments, but no more.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to give Kerbin axial tilt, since for new players learning how to get into orbit is already a significant task, let alone dealing with the dV losses axial tilt introduces. I think beginning the tilt at Duna would be a good idea instead, since going there is generally the first interplanetary step. The Mun is basically at zero eccentricity to allow players to first handle the concept of orbital transfers, and Minmus then adds inclined orbits. Duna then adds eccentricity, so I'd argue it's also a good case for introducing some light axial tilt. Something like Dres, Eeloo or Moho could introduce greater tilt to spice them up.

While I don't care for explicit answers (and instead much prefer suggestions which keep me imagining), I'm not sure I'm inclined to agree that it reduces the scope for inventing head-canon/lore. After all, fan fiction is quite popular in all sorts of fandoms, so clearly people find it easy to come up with their own stories/head-canon. It's very easy to ignore lore in KSP because of how physically huge the world is. Again, I really think that's taking lore to the extreme. It's like one of those small things in Star Wars that sect of the really hardcore fanbase want in-depth details about, and then it just comes off as reading like fan fiction.

To be honest, while I really do want some more hints towards a precursor race, I reckon what you suggest might be a bit excessive. I quite like the idea of an ancient station orbiting around, say, some gas giant in an interstellar system, or even a wreckage of a precursor ship on a distant moon, but nothing that you can really reverse engineer into useful tech. At that point, resources need to be devoted to programming that tech, making part files, etc., and the devs have gone on record saying that they don't want to have magic technology. Once you start making interstellar aliens integral to the core game, the game begins to lose some of its special pizazz for those who want to avoid that stuff.

I've seen some people have the attitude that it detracts from the experience, and that "oh, it's all up to the player to make their own lore". To that I say go live a little and stop being so boring Lore is fun when handled right and non-intrusively. I'd really like to lean more into NovaSilisko's ancient Kerbals, but nothing revealing - some small easter eggs found scattered around systems, that when researched via science experiments/samples, suggest things but never really reveal any explicit details. Things like the Dunian face, pyramid and SSTV signal, and the Val ruins were perfect. They have no effect on the game, but provide a basis for roleplaying and imagination. Anything more than small snippets would take away from the magic and mystery.

Absolutely, holy crap. I'm sick of Jumbo 64s

Oooh that's cool.

How do you mean?

Spacedock, or Orbital Shipyard ...plain and simple. Also: lmao

How about just you just call it a spacedock?

Either way, this gives me assurance that the devs aren't taking KSP 2's development lightly, which is good. I have good faith they'll be trying their hardest

Interesting that colonies won't be self-sustaining/self-expanding. Would be cool to only have to keep constructing until they had a self-production output, at which point they could manufacture their own stuff

Bear in mind though that everything takes time and resources to develop - that's time and resources taken away from something else the user may actually want. I don't want OP/far-future tech engines in the game because that would mean less time was spent adding realistic/near-future tech engines. While it definitely sometimes does (hell I'm probably guilty of it too on occasion), it doesn't always stem from minding other people's business.

Same - the issue of MP + timewarp is going to take a while to solve, and I'd like to see them not rush that out

Ohh, I think I understand - you're referring to what happens if you escape the sphere of influence of either star, aren't you? In that case, my apologies for the condescending reply It's a good question to be honest. Realistically, I can see a few options (that really depend on how the interstellar group will be modelled): The stars all orbit a black hole: this would be problematic as over time, the systems' relative positions are going to change, therefore changing the difficulty of interstellar travel. If you miss a star, you end up orbiting the black hole. The stars all orbit a black hole at the same orbital SMA, but at different inclinations, eccentricities etc.: This would be simple, but kinda weird and unrealistic. I could potentially see this happening. Same thing - miss a star, you orbit the black hole. The stars all orbit each other (a barycentre): You'd need to employ some sort of N-body calculations. The stars are all frozen in space, and you're taken along a straight path to the next SOI. I see this as the likeliest option, since interstellar voyages are likely going to take on the order of decades, and to make that feasible you'll want to get to the next star as fast as you can. They'll probably space the stars far enough to be approximated as relatively stationary, since your motion is going to be orders of magnitude greater than that of the stars. In this case, you'd just keep going in the same direction, which makes sense since you're outside of the significant sphere of influence and hence your path isn't going to be changed much at the speeds you're going.

I really can't see KSP 2 without life support. That being said, it absolutely needs to have some sort of user-controlled automation, expecially for orbital spaceports and stations that can't resupply themselves like a colony can. Regarding automatic SP supply missions, what if for a given station/orbital spaceport: the game calculates the dV required for a resupply mission using a launch window from either the KSC or the nearest sustainable launch-capable colony (Mechjeb can already do these calculations with porkchop plots), it tasks you with constructing a resupply vessel that satisfies the dV and resupply requirements. you instruct your KSC/colony/etc. when to launch the mission, and the game then executes a simulated launch that adds the resources to your station after the mission duration has passed i.e. the simulated resupply ship has made it to the station. This way there's no physical ship being launched; it's all just numbers in the background. Bear in mind though that this is user-controlled automation and therefore it's entirely optional - you're still free to fly your own resupply missions if you want to tackle all that. The idea is to help take a lot of the burden off players that don't want to perform the repetitive and menial task of constantly resupplying large stations. Colonisation and life support go closely hand-in-hand, and I think something like this could (in theory) work.

Well then you'd best learn not to make mistakes. What's stopping you from flinging yourself into an escape from the Kerbol system at the moment? Nothing