Stevie_D

I'm always intrigued as to how SpaceX is planning to land an ever-taller Starship on a planet without levelled terrain, landing legs, or landing pad infrastructure. I mean, basic physics states that the taller and thinner something is the harder it is to balance. Isn't there a massive danger that one shift in the dirt or a slight incline in the terrain when it lands and Starship topples over? (And I don't mean for the Moon, which obvs the concept showed landing legs, I mean Mars.)

First, I'd like to say it's *tentatively* good to see the devs finally get back on track with the game. I'm reluctant to get too much into praising someone for what they initially should have done in the first place, but For Science seems to be the step in the right direction they needed. I would like to stipulate that I do not want this thread devolving into bashing the devs, this is purely a technical gameplay question that I am confused by and it could be twisted by folks to attack them. So please keep it civil. I am confused by the new tech tree progression. In every video so far, I've seen people do 2-3 missions and then unlock nearly or all -24- boxes of Tier 1. Matt Lowne on his channel even challenged people to see if they could unlock ALL of Tier 1 in just 2 missions. So that begs me to think "Well, why did the devs create ->24 <-boxes in the first place? Why do that if you unlock it all in 3 missions?" Surely it should be 3 to 4 boxes you need to unlock, because to design 24 would be to insinuate you're asking the player to make strategic choices of what they might need in the future and prioritize which tree branch they went down first ... but unlocking it all in 2-3 missions removes that strategic gameplay in its entirety. So my second thought was maybe they will eventually remove the sheer amount of science points from the start of the game once all the new solar systems are introduced and bags more science is available to collect. But then I remembered how game devs tend to work (this not being my first rodeo.) Obviously the game is in early access and is subject to change but, when it comes to difficulty levels, game developers have a history of only making difficulty settings easier over time, not harder (Because if they make it harder, the tendency is for the majority of the player-base to complain. The known method is to make it hard and reduce it until the majority of people are happy with the challenge.) Then, of course, there is the fact KSP1 has a difficulty slider and your next reaction is to think maybe that will be implemented in KSP2. But, even without sliding the difficulty up or down in KSP1, the tech tree immediately starts making you make critical strategic decisions. I remember it being that way from day 1 implementation. So I guess I'm a tad concerned that, along with the increased cartoonishness of the game's world that KSP2s game is also going to be dumbed down to the point where it is no longer a challenge, even with a difficulty slider. That isn't to say this is or will be the case, it's simply a concern at this point. So, am I missing something with this tech tree? Because those in later tiers still seem to be unlocking many, many boxes at a time without much need of strategic gameplay thinking. Again, please keep it civil folks. The devs have made a step in the right direction with the patch, it's not a shout from the rooftops redemption story but its a step in the right direction.

No. I simply stated various tasks associated with the type of experiment. For instance - the thermometer experiment could be a "make sure your craft sits through one full rotation of the planet so that it gets the maximum high and the maximum low, so it can discover both and also the average temperature." That in itself would pose different challenges based upon the planet's rotation speed or ...if life support is added... pose a further challenge to making sure the craft has enough supplies/food to last. Or give you the option to land on the day side and then the night side to get both (especially if a planet is tidally locked.) There are plenty of ways to make science more of a gameplay challenge without it being a minigame in itself. That was just off the top of my head. I'm already thinking of far more fun ones for the other science experiments but i'll save this from becoming a long-winded post.

The science does sadly sound rather a lot like the old science mode but with a time delay tacked on. And the "find Points of Interest for science" just sounds like the anomalies from KSP1 being turned from easter eggs into an addition to science. One of the main gripes about science in KSP 1 was the fact it was so monotonous and not very involved or interesting. It was a glorified repeating fetch quest. Having various things to do for different types of experiments was what most long-time players were hoping for. I would say that, hopefully, the devs did their market research, knew that, and that's what they've been working on and they're just holding out on us for part of that "interesting things to come" quote... but then again, Nate thought the community loved wobbly rockets for 4 entire years of game development... And continued to do so even after it was pointed out from witnessing it happen in the earliest videos a year or so before release. So that's why I understand most folks will be cautious at hearing news of this update. The key element, however, isn't the new content, it's in fixing the game-breaking bugs and making the game playable as a basic function. You can add all the shiny new parts and modes you want but if the core game isn't fixed into a playable state then no one can fly missions to enjoy the new content in the first place. Everyone who plays KSP will accept bugs, just not bugs that make playing the game impossible. Shadowzone posted a video just a couple days ago showing how virtually impossible it still is to complete even a simple mission. Matt Lowne I hear doesn't even want to touch docking ports because of their dangers. So I dearly hope that the devs have fixed more than just the wobbly rockets, but 2 or 3 of the other deal-breaking bugs as well. Because to release a big update like this with announcements and media hype and then have it release and still be unplayable would then be 2 heavy kicks to the teeth within the game's first year. That will do the game's reputation even further damage and only solidify the huge amount of negative reviews. No-one wants that. So I really have my fingers crossed for you devs. If you want to turn things around it has to start being proven with actions - not words. Everyone in this community wants this game to be great, so hopefully in December we are all pleasantly surprised.

I would guess, from a technical standpoint, that the distant view will be a texture on a circular plane map, but when you approach it fades out and fades in a scatter tool similar to how rocks are already generated on the planets. If you think they will have collision detection and you can crash into them, or knock them out of place, I would highly advise you to manage your expectations. It would be great, but as Jimmy mentions, it could cause the devs great pain, performance wise, to try and get it to work on older systems. And as business people, at the end of the day, their goal is to get it to play on as many computers as possible.

The problem is, "Kerbal Space Simulation" is incorrect English for the description. The game is titled Program because you are taking control of Kerbals, who have a space program, deriving from the Space Program NASA had. The title is describing what the Kerbals are doing - and they aren't simulating anything. It is a Space Program run by Kerbals - hence Kerbal Space Program. And no amount of title description altering will change your friend looking at a game, seeing cartoon aliens, and assuming it is for kids. That was his visual takeaway from looking at them, not the title. The original devs chose Kerbals to try and get kids involved in the first place.

Hey @Nate Simpson I would like to say that I don't think there is a single soul on these forums who holds any malice or has a problem with the people physically working on the game, at all. From the start, you and your team have shown you've wanted to bend over backwards and demonstrate your love of the original game, keep its core concepts, and enhance it to the logical next level with KSP2. You, especially, should give yourself a pat on the back for that. What the news does tell us, is that the last few months have been a big upheaval for you guys, and now we understand why it got pushed back to next year. It's really sad to hear what's gone on. The worst thing about the gaming world is the corporate executives, and I can only sympathize - because although people will b**ch and moan on the forums, I doubt any of us can imagine the headache it must've given people like you and the rest of the dev team. So thanks for sticking in there and getting back on the horse. I hope you put the extra 12 months to good use, too! hehe We really, really appreciate the work you guys are doing, and the love you're obviously putting into it.

The only surprise in any of this is that they didn't gut Squad and pull the same trick. Luckily for them, the game had already been out years when they got taken over. You can make excuses for T2 all day long, but the facts are on the table. Private Division's sole purpose for existence was supposedly to support indie game studios. Instead it takes one over, guts it, and discards it like trash because they didn't get the renegotiation they wanted. So in actual practice, Private Division's purpose is to sugar coat Indie devs into working for T2 so they can control them, then do a Star Theory if things dont go precisely how T2 want, instead of supporting them.

Considering the shaky state of the footage so far, combined with the Coronavirus, I wholeheartedly applaud this decision. It would be so easy for them to just take what they've got and churn out a shoddy product this summer or in the fall, now it looks like it'll get the love and attention it deserves. Thumbs up here.

Putting too much stock in a screenshot and assuming information and thinking of it as locked in can be misleading. Seeing the radiation shield in front of an engine is like saying "I saw the pipes above the Skipper engine in a screenshot, so we'll need to do maintenance on rockets." For all we know, the radiation shields could just be the top end of the model for the fusion/nuclear/metallichydrogen/whatever rockets, and are there for asthetic purposes. I'd like to -think- we have to deal with radiation, but taking a screenshot and saying it's so just because you see something doesnt make it true.

Considering Ovin (from the screenshots) looks like a standard planet but with rings, and Glumo looks like a gas giant that you can't land on, I'd go for Ovin too.

I think i found the flaw in your argument

Kerbogs

Just because they said they're going to continue working on KSP1 though, that doesn't necessarily mean DLC. Patches and updates are all they could mean. I would imagine Private Divison, who own both KSP and KSP2, like most publishers, plan ahead long in advance. It's unlikely they would ask Squad to make a DLC come out during KSP2's launch window, purely in order to maximize sales of KSP2. Considering their initial launch window was around April, it's safe to say Squad hadn't been instructed to create DLC for Q1 or Q2 of 2020 at the time At best, Q3 or Q4 of this year. But now KSP2 has been held back, i imagine whatever DLC they were planning on (if any), would've already been announced if they were going to rush it out sooner (not likely considering KSP2 could be out in the summer) or held back till after KSP2's launch. All in all, considering the launch window for KSP2 is now extremely broad, encompassing now until April 21, then the odds are KSP 1 DLC is unlikely to be coming at all in 2020.

Adding the search for life as part of the science tree might be fun. It would definitely give us more reason to use rovers and pretend we're doing Nasa-esque recon missions for cellular life, or even just FOSSILIZED ancient life. Massive alien giraffes running around on an exoplanet tho? Nah, leave that to No Man's Sky imo.

And it doesn't matter how you define it - early access may or may not be release - the fact is, it doesnt need it is the argument you're avoiding. It does not need playtesting by outsiders when they have their own people doing exactly that right now. People who are also far more reliable than the general public, i might add.

Early Access made sense for KSP1, because the devs were working on next to no budget and needed the exposure. KSP2 clearly doesn't need Early Access. It has exposure, it's working along the lines of the original game in how they're creating it, and it has a large budget by the looks of it, too. (Well for a space sim game) Let the devs release it when they feel its ready, instead of the hassle and mess of involving lots of players who will give mixed feedback regardless of what they do. So nah, pass on said petitition.

What makes me laugh is how these same people don't write to say, Amazon in the same way. "Dear Amazon, I have been watching Star Trek since the 1960s, can I get a discount on your Prime service so I can watch Star Trek Picard, please?"

It's quite simple - when the game goes like and they want to post dev updates, they have somewhere to do it.

I didn't hear anyone complaining or worrying about what was happening in the 2 years prior that they worked on the game and it hadn't been announced. Oh yeah, because you didn't know about it. And if they hadn't announced it, you still wouldn't know about it. Delays in games happen. It's part of the process to ANY creative work. Just be glad they delayed it and aren't rushing it out the door. I'd be FAR more worried by that.

I've tried that myself (with only the current version of KAS, not the dev build igor mentioned). Currently it either rips the ground plate out of the ground or makes the entire base jump up and explode. But that might also be down to other mods. I only tested it on my current playthough, though, not specifically to root out what was at fault. It's great to hear igor has a fix for the corridors though, it's one of KPBS' and USIs best features. The work all three of you guys do on these mods is great.

I think you dont realize, @LatiMacciato saying things like and comes off as extremely passive-aggressive. I think all RoverDude is asking, is that you converse in a way that doesn't have you hinting at him being a un-co-operative meglomaniac. Text is a very difficult medium to convey yourself in sometimes, so it might not be your intention, but thats obviously how it is coming across to him (and me).

Actually, each design change they make is to bring it closer to its design goals. Thats why you change a design. The problem lies in the fact that they know what the goals are, but -because- it is a new design, they dont know how best to achieve those goals. The point im making - is designing new technology is a messy, ever changing process. It always has been, always will be.

Well, its not surprising the BFR keeps getting redesigned. It is basically new technology, a new space vehicle designed from the ground up for a new specific purpose. It took the folks in the 50s a decade or so to come up with the type of rocket design we've been using for the last 60 years. I imagine the BFR will probably go through at least another 2 major noticeable changes before they get to a design that just requires tweaks.

Yeah, a bit of a case of overkill. Large parts need lots of detailing (2.5 upwards for example) small parts like this, well; i guess i don't understand why your other new adapters in the other thread are minimalist in detail, but these are busy. Yeah, i can see they need to be "apollo" schemed to make rockets look a bit more on theme when changing sizes, but just a black band and white like the old one was fine. I'm also baffled (again, like other folk) as to why the new 1.25m fuel tanks had their lips removed and these don't. You have a nice chance to use this part in particular to make the transition less harsh from 1.25m to 0.625 by having a tapered edge instead of a lip. That way, just for the same poly count (or less as in the case below), you can have rockets look a bit more like their real world counterparts do when their shapes change.