shdwlrd

Everyone seems to forget about this thread. Section 2.2 is about what fuels have been confirmed. @K^2 A stock resource table is a good method for adding the new resources when the devs are ready to do so. I really hope that the devs have a similar mindset as you.

No, not really. There maybe a target part count range before the games' performance begins to drop noticeably, but no hard limits on part counts. The actual limitations on part count would be your system specs and your tolerance for game slow downs. Nate describes this in one of the early interviews. The only promise that Intercept has made regarding part count is that you should be able to make an interstellar ship by an orbital colony with little to no performance degradation. So 1000+ parts in physics range should be at playable frame rates (24+ fps), not the current slide show that KSP1 presents with as few as 300 parts.

One limit would be the maximum size of the rocket you can build. It has already been confirmed that there will be hard limits on the rocket size build in the VAB. (Orbital VAB won't have size limits.) Another would be the amount of resources required. Building colonies will take massive amounts or resources. (They will be built on location, not landed.) Another could be a limited rate of resource production from the KSC. It may take a long time to get enough of a resource to even consider a launch. Another is just gravity. You can launch larger payloads from the Mun or Minmus than you can from Kerbin as they weigh less. Before I forget, interstellar travel is another reason not to send everything from Kerbin. It will take decades for it to arrive. So there are plenty of reasons to build up colonies and not to launch everything from Kerbin.

Unless it's an ERP solution. ERP providers will make a profit no matter how many different ways they include to enter an order. Obviously KSP isn't ERP software. I wouldn't expect that.

I can see someone trying to cheat the system with this one. (With some succeeding.) I was intending it to work like some of the Hardship: Shipbreaker achievements, you don't lose any achievements, just the counter resets. (Salvage X number of reactors without a meltdown or salvage X number of ships without an explosion. (Harder than you would think.))

Number of missions since last accident-5,10,25,50: Do that number of missions without a crash, revert to launchpad or quick loads resets the count.

Hopefully there will be dedicated private servers for the people who don't want to deal with the MMO mess.

Can someone post the link for the VOD for us unlucky stiffs who have to work and can't watch things live.

If I'm remembering correctly, even the first nukes the nuclear reaction was a secondary reaction. They still used high energy chemical explosives to drive the catalyst into the radioactive core. (Think something akin of a shape charge.) So they were very stable from the beginning. But yeah, there was a (very slim) chance of accidental detonation. The modern designs are far safer. The nuclear reaction won't happen unless the detonation sequence happens in the correct order. If not, you're just spreading radioactive material everywhere. (Not as devastating, but not a good thing to happen either.)

There was a warning about using the Orion drive near the KSC and colonies. I think nukes will cause the amount of damage as you would expect. (Deliberate or not) The funny thing is, I can see the storage getting destroyed by a nuke, but not seeing any type of chain reaction. Nukes are very stable, if they weren't, they wouldn't be used as weapons.

I think you're getting a little ahead of the game. This info would be better touched on when science or resources are added to the game. Granted, I would love to be able to create height maps for planets from the start. But the initial EA release is the bare bones KSP sandbox. So I wouldn't expect anything science related to be included.

I'm really surprised that Intercept is using live recording for the soundtrack. I was wrong with that prediction. Well played Intercept, can't wait to actually listen to it.

Sure, it best shows both the capabilities and limitations of an autopilot. Even a non-pilot can use the automatic flight systems to land a plane with the proper instruction. That's the point. You still need to know how to use any flight automation for it to be effective, but you really don't need to have the skill required. If you watch the video, the person in the pilot's seat still has to tell the flight computer what they want to do and when. It's not a click button and I just land from anywhere. You still need to provide guidance for the flight systems. You are still involved with the decision making. In real life, pilots hand fly certain portions of a flight because they have and want to. This is a game, leave the choice up to the player if they want to hand fly or not. What I'm not advocating for is removing the player from the decision making process. Just removing/reducing the physical skill required.

For those who don't believe in autopilots, I'm just going to leave this here.

I prefer the unlock as you need and/or discover something approach. This way you still have the "this isn't ideal, but still doable" feel when progressing through the game.

I'm a little late, but I love what you have done with the new Buffalo series of parts. It's really making me want to fire up KSP again to mess around with it.

If I press W, which way is the navball going to rotate? Will it move along the 90º marker? Will it move along the 45º circle? Will it move to the diagonally to the 180º at the horizon? Or zero 0º at the horizon? And before you ask, I would have to hit WASD to figure out which way the ball would move before I would change my orientation. Also, how hard would it be to show in text form; Pitch +46; Yaw +91; Roll -90 from the 0,0,0 on the navball?

I've been trying to come up with a response that didn't directly call out the stubbornness of people that think the navball is the only way to tell the orientation of your craft in space. The navball is mostly useful in horizontal flight, if not the most accurate thing you can use though. With most aircraft, its only a 1-2° change in orientation that can change an efficient flight profile to an inefficient flight profile. You're not in a real aircraft to hear and feel these queues. You need to rely on good, accurate orientation readings, which the navball doesn't give you. The ladder display does give you the accuracy you need. An greatly enlarged navball design works for that too. (Frankly, the navball in KSP is displayed too small to be helpful when minute changes in orientation is necessary.) In vertical flight it's the inaccurate and incomplete information of the navball I can't deal with. In vertical flight in a tailsitter rocket, (not a helicopter or horizontally designed VTOL) how do you tell by looking at the navball which direction is forward/backwards? Which direction is right or left? (Forward is the side where the cockpit window(s) are. Backwards is the opposite side of the window(s). Left and right is from the forward prospective.) How do you tell the number of degrees off of vertical you are and in which directions? Look at the craft is the response I always get. But that isn't helpful. It seems to be a canned response from someone who can't see that there might be an issue, don't want something to change, or don't want to think that there might be a better way. A good navigational and orientation display should clearly show your crafts situation in space with just a picture. Not a gif, clip, or movie, just a picture. The navball currently is barely usable in horizontal flight and useless in vertical flight. Outside of the inaccuracy of the information displayed, it's lack of a clear explanation of the crafts orientation with regards to your pitch, roll, and yaw within a 3d space makes it unusable for me. Yes, I would prefer a ladder style display but I agree, that may not be the best answer for everyone, but it's the best answer for me. You can also do a navball with the crafts orientation show within it. You can do a hybrid navball with integrated ladders for pitch, yaw, and roll. Or some other design that suits your needs. But give good, clear information of your crafts situation and orientation in space.

Lol. Popular games will sell 5 million units in a week or two after launch. Probably 20-50 million units in its life cycle. KSP is still a niche game with only 5 million units sold in its lifetime.

@Bej Kerman I figured it would be easier to draw a diagram to help explain what I have pictured in my head. This is what you would see just as a plane starts to fall after a vertical stall. (Also works for a tail landing.) The green bar with the triangles is your roll angle or rate. You will see that you still have your pro/retrograde marker. (The normal and radial markers would be floating off to the side somewhere.) There maybe another triangle or line above or through your bank indicator to show your slip/yaw rate. (I've only seen this on the fighter planes, not on commercial/GA planes. (Maybe shown, but I've never noticed it.)) The velocity marker would move to the absolute direction you're drifting. The bank indicator will dip whichever direction you're rolling. The yaw indicator will shift to show which way your nose is pointing. I favor this as it's cleaner and less ambiguous as the navball. I can clearly see my pitch angle, roll direction/rate, and my yaw direction/rate with a high degree of accuracy compared to the navball. With the navball, I'm always guessing what the craft is doing and how to correct it. With the ladder, I know exactly what the craft is doing and how it correct it. Color coding could be helpful. But what you would define as quick or dangerous really depends on what you're flying. A GA plane a fast decent could be only 500ft/sec whereas a commercial plane a fast decent would be 1000ft/sec.

You're not wrong, I get the thought process. But the devs will be introducing a completely unfamiliar system to us with the automated supply routes. Resource gathering, storage, and conversion is relatively straightforward. It's the automation of resource transfers that may not be intuitive to use. It may require different iterations to get it "right". Of course, I may be over thinking it, but getting feedback for unfamiliar systems over a longer period of time will seem to get the best results.

Yes, I've seen ladders that flip out at 90°. I've also see ones the don't. Most of the ones that don't freak out at 90° were used in dedicated space based flight sims. (Think like the old X-wing or Tie fighter games.) Let me clarify, the ladders that don't flip out at 90° only reflected your pitch angle, not your roll angle. The roll angle was represented with another element within the display. The ladders that also represented your roll angle, those are the ones that flip out at 90°.

I've never had an issue with a ladder display, including flying vertical. I've always had issues with a Navballs. It's a personal opinion. You may not think it's an issue, I do think it's an issue.

I do like the new flight UI. Everything is in one place, they way it should be. Like everyone else, I do have some gripes. The Navball; I've never liked the Navball. I've always found it confusing to read in crucial situations. I'd like to see the standard ladder style display for pitch like in modern aircraft as an option. Numeric displays for pitch and roll angles; Not truly necessary in all situations, but can be handy to know when for takeoffs and landings. Numeric displays for sink and climb rate; I'm someone who will get a better feel with seeing numbers instead of an arrow pointing up or down. The compass direction; That really should show to the hundredths of a degree. That small of an amount can lead to a large error when traveling several hundred km. Imagine how much the error will be over several lightyears. Fonts and text colors; I'm not having issues reading the fonts themselves. I'm having trouble reading the tape markings. There needs to be more contrast between the tape color and the markings on it. I also know that fonts and colors is highly subjective. Maybe a way to change up the fonts and colors as a personalization option.

That's basically how I see it working. There could be the possibility with the players permission, for the other player to edit the craft or at least add a ghosting effect for suggested changes to their craft. Again, with their permission of course.