RayneCloud

Wildly speculating, with very little information., is not something I find helpful or productive.

Hmmm.. if you say so.

PhysX is perfectly fine for what it's used for and what is was designed for, which is handling rigid body physics, fluid dynamics, and more.

That makes sense then, it's polar distortion.

These on the poles?

I don't intend to use either. I'll stick with the official one when it comes out.

An engine switch would destroy this project outright, as would any attempt to build a new engine from the ground up. This is very much the standard gamer "it would be easy!" kind of comment. No, it very much would not be. I am speaking from a decade of experience across 5 games.

I fixed the stock K2 and flew it! WOOT.

Gotcha

Well, first off, let me stop any unity engine hate from showing up before it does... It's an amazing engine that's grown in ability by leaps and bounds. Let me direct you to Sakura Rabbit, https://www.youtube.com/@sakurarabbit6708 as an example. I've been with unity for a decade and it continues to push formed as a valid competitor to Unreal. Not every game needs to be coded in Unreal either, adn building an engine from the ground up would have put this games several years behind in development compared to where it is now. It's the same engine, it's still Unity, just the most modern version of it.

You're forgetting a LOT of making history parts are in KSP @bigyihsuan Panels, tubes, engine plates, stack decouplers and separators, fairings, one of the rover wheels, one of the heat shields, and the nose cone.

Will get on that later.

Engines Section is Done, (Tank Section is Huge, gonna take a bit.) Note: Engine Plates not only obsolete some older engine parts, but massively increase engine options and layout options for lifters, transfer stages, landers, etc

I uh, love Restock and Restock plus @Vl3dbut umm, just covering the stock parts list for now lol

Truth Side note, there's 12 total categories of part in KSP 2 and the one that's changed the most (I think) is fuel tanks, (followed by aerodynamics parts) so, these two sections might be a bit off....

Later in the day, kiddo to school and then I'll get to it before work.

So... more?

So being awake early and bored, and having counted the parts out before out of sheer boredom, I thought it would be neat to make a more visual representation of the parts parity KSP 2 has with KSP 1. This is just part 1 to see if anyone is interested in more? I just thought it was neat to see what parts are missing, and what new parts we got. As a note, the "Command Section" is missing 2 parts from KSP 1 Stock but we gained 5 new parts. So, we went from 23 parts of this type to 26. So a net gain quite literally Sections Command: Posted Above Fuel Tanks: WIP Engines: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/214189-ksp-2-parts-parity-part-deux/&do=findComment&comment=4249806 Structure: WIP Coupling: WIP Payload: WIP Aerodynamics: WIP Ground: WIP Thermal: WIP Electrical: WIP Communication: WIP Utility: WIP

1. We already have a large selection of fuel tanks in the stock game, 64 in total with 34 of them being Methalox tanks and covering most of the making history tanks. 2. Engine plates have made a few of the making history engines obsolete, and some of them are in the game. 3. All of the making history panels and tube parts are in KSP 2 already. 4. As stated, all the engine plates are in KSP 2 already. 5. The stack decouplers are in KS2 already. 6. Fairings, wheels, and heat shields, are in KSP 2 already. In short, did you bother looking at the parts in the game? Because literally most of making history is already in KSP2. What we'd want, is breaking ground, not making making history.

We've seen some stronger and more advanced strut parts in the back end, so this might be some sort of design decision to force players to build smaller and more compact vehicles at the start of their campaign, using a Tech 1 strut to move to larger vehicles and a Tech 2 strut to go even larger. I think the problem is that, the joint rigidity is way to low even if this was a design decision. Though, if you fly the stock rockets the K1 and K2, they have no issues with wobble what so ever. (The K2 needed fixing, so I threw a stack separator in it.)

Need I remind you of the communit ybased volunteer experimental testing team that Skunky and I started

For me, it's... * Stock Alike Station Parts Expansion Redux * Kerbal Planetary Base Systems * OPT or MKIVSS * OPM * Feline Utility Rovers

That is factually untrue. Epic has over 62+ million users and steam has 120 million with up around 60 million daily active users. While that's only /half/ of steams user base, it's still... that.. HALF. That's a HUGE store front and a huge point of sale location. Also, Epic takes 8% and steam takes 30%+ , and if I were launching a game, I'd launch on Epic to get more revenue and not have to counter that revenue loss to steams cut by increasing sales numbers.