Bartybum

But it is KSP 2. It isn't an update of the old code - it's an entirely new game made from scratch This sounds to me like an argument stemming from not wanting pay for it... Because if a person were happy to pay for it, then at that point it makes no difference whether it's separate or an iteration of 1.x.

I WANT THERE TO BE A SPINNING NEUTRON STAR THATS 0.5 LIGHT YEARS OUT WHICH HAS A GAS GIANT ORBITING IT WITH 5 MOONS SPECIFICALLY CALLED KHADJFSO, LEDRDED, SASDAFF, URUHEFG AND GOJKAFD AND I WANT ONE TO HAVE LIFE ON IT WITH TREES AND CITIES AND KERMANS WALKING AROUND AND ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR I cannot for the life of me understand why some people are that specific in their wishlists, to the point of listing names. It screams a hilarious lack of awareness Now that that's off my chest I don't care much for launch towers, or really anything else you've listed save for perhaps the mining equipment (a bit more complex mining could be nice I suppose), but I'd really like more realistic launch clamp options.

Well that's definitely part of it, but can you really blame them? KSP 1.x's source code is almost a decade old now, and the effort to update it to modern standards would likely be economically prohibitive. It's been said heaps of times in this thread already.

I haven't played RSS, but I'm not sure I could handle the added difficulty. The 2.5x mod for KSP 1.x seemed like it'd be a nice balance between realism and gameplay.

I definitely would like to see the Kerbol system's planets be 2-3x as large as they currently are. It's a bit jarring when half the time your payload is almost as long as your lifter, especially for smaller payloads.

You might wanna get off that high horse before it buckles underneath the weight of your misplaced pride lol. You didn't make the game - you're just a consumer like the rest of us. It's okay to admit KSP has flaws that can't be fixed without a major rewrite sinking countless hours to the point that it becomes an uneconomic decision to do so for free.

And just who are you to judge them for that? Not everyone has to play the game the way you want them to. Why do you think BD Armory is so immensely successful?

Aaaaaand there goes your entire argument.

I still don't see why two people can't work on it at the same time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If you know the basics then please do explain. Like I'm genuinely interested (like actually, no hostilities here) to know why the technical aspect would be so controversial

Maybe I phrased my idea wrong, so I'll go again. I'm saying that while in a shared VAB session, let both builders save the craft at any point to their own clientside repositories, but only allow the host of the building session to control which craft file is being worked on at any given time. Picture a normal singleplayer VAB session, but now add a guest. The guest is just along for the ride, but can add/remove parts and save the craft to their own repository. Again, it's the same concept as a shared cockpit in flight simulator. Both the pilot and copilot can steer the plane, but only the pilot can choose which plane is loaded. "On a friendly note, allow me to say something rather condescending" Granted, I don't know how to program/network/whatever, but I'm assuming the devs do. This isn't that unreasonable, since after all they do intend to tackle multiplayer. Since neither of us two are writing the game, I think it's a bit premature to think it can't be done.

Assuming the craft file is local to the VAB-host's client, you could just not give the guest access to the VAB-host's craft file repository. Furthermore, you could give the guest a "download craft file" button to let them save it to their own local repository (if the host checks a "share craft file" button). It's the same as sharing a cockpit in a flight simlator server, where the guest can push buttons (add/take off parts), but the host still holds the reins (saving, and what craft file is loaded).

What? I just suggested a very simple fix to the abuse - how is there any potential [~ snip ~]? Saying "oh no I think it's best left untouched" in light of what I've suggested is a total cop-out.

Not really. If they suddenly grief you, then you kick them, then revert their changes one by one until all their griefing is reversed. If their griefing has been slow and not really visible over time, then a system that informs you when and what they've just placed would fix that issue too.

This ^^^ and my suggestion combined would be great - forcing a save prior to accepting, and then having the ability to revert guests' changes In that case your request is incorrect. It's impossible to prevent people from acting like dicks; the best you can do is revert the effects.

(Prompt): "Allow [player] shared VAB/SPH access? Your craft will be autosaved before you accept (Y/N)" Problem solved. No room for abuse.

No room for abuse if you make it request-approved only.

Yeesh, couple of people in this thread forgot how to think. MP will absolutely be optional, and it absolutely won't affect SP. I can't read the future, but I can absolutely guarantee they're going to be separate. I have no idea why anyone would even begin to think any other way. Countless games in the world successfully separate SP and MP; it's not like it's some new concept. The devs have made it a point to show us that they're well aware of what game KSP is at heart. Forcing MP on those who don't want it would go against everything. Peeps are worrying about a non-issue.

Lol, we bought the game for super cheap in early access and helped to fund it. As a result we got given all the DLC for free. I'd say we have no reason to expect a discount on a new unrelated product

I'd like the same easter eggs teasing about ancient Kerbal lore transferred over, like Duna's SSTV and Val's stonehenge, as well as new stuff. Perhaps snippets could be unlocked through science?

@Dale Christopher I'll concede, but I should express that I'm not interested in FTL for FTL's sake, but as a consequence of wanting more systems. If there was a non-FTL method that necessitated stuff like life-support, hydro/aquaponics, etc. then I'd ABSOLUTELY prefer that.

Bit hostile there but okay . You've misread my comment; I consider FTL a feature, not polishing. There's a slight difference between the two that I'll elaborate on in future (I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment). If we don't get FTL then I can understand (albeit more star systems and planets will still be definitely highly desired). Regarding something sci-fi having no place in KSP, I'd argue that given the fact we have: 1. a dead Kraken on Bop 2. an alien head and ancient Kerbal progenitor SSTV signal on Duna 3. the alien stone henge on Vall I'd argue that the game has already shown it's somewhat okay with science fiction being part of it. In addition, when it first came out the Interstellar mod was one of, if not THE most popular KSP mod. Plenty of people could hence argue that FTL can have a place in KSP. My wish for FTL is a consequence of my wish for more star systems, because of how significantly the game would change (with respect to interstellar base and station construction). At those time periods, you're looking at multidecadal voyages and contracts being conducted while trying to manage your space agency. Sub-luminal space travel just isn't workable with multiple star systems logistically in the scope of career mode.

I don't think it'd be too hard to come up with defaults for a prop disk / prop unit. You'd have something like tweakables really similar to what the current options allow: number of blades, deployment, direction, authority, blade variant. And just use the same resultant vector values for lift and drag that you get with the standard props. It'd take some amount of work but I don't think it's anything too complicated.

I’d like to see inflatable modules and some more science module types. I’d also like to see special contracts to visit and research anomalies once discovered, and provide science incentives to set up bases near them, as well as contracts serving that base from time to time so it’s not just a one-off thing.

I'm quite surprised that we still don't have some form of basic life support ala Snacks! in the game.

High priority: - More landing wheel variants/adjustable landing gear height (Highest priority!) - 2.5m trusses for larger stations - Longer fuel tanks: It'd be really nice to have an FL-T1600, Jumbo-128 and S3-28800 instead of having to stack two of the largest tank lengths we already have - Inflatable habitation modules - More station modules i.e. labs doing different experiments, logistics modules, etc. - More small aircraft wing panel sizes: they're almost there, but there's one or two missing shapes I'd like to see Medium priority: - More structural adapters: one short length like the Brand Adapter 02, and a long one like the normal Brand Adapter - More 5m part skins: I don't want every large rocket to look like a Saturn V derivative - Flatter inline RCS tanks - More Mk3-compatible wings: referring to both panel wings and single piece wings, with corresponding control surfaces. The current selection is really lacking. I'd like a way to make larger airliner wings and SSTOs look nice. - More 0.625m fuel tanks - More fuel tank adapters: the current ones are a bit varied and random when it comes to lengths and diameters. A more comprehensive selection would really be nice Low priority: - 3.75m probe core & reaction wheel - Longer Mk3 adapters: something to allow nicer noses and tails instead of the stubby ones that are only possible now - 2.5m Rapiers, turbofans and turbojets - Larger solar panels - 2.5m SRBs