shdwlrd

Considering that it's confirmed that procedural wings and radiators will be in the game, there is a small chunk of KSP1 parts removed from the parts line up. If at least fuel switching is planned, there is another large chunk of parts removed too. So there are probably more new parts than we would expect. But overall, I'm not expecting too much variety with the part profiles. But a tantalizing thought is that ~600 part figure isn't including a majority of the recycled KSP1 parts. How many truly new and unseen parts are there going to be?

Can't argue that point, not everything in KSP is scientifically accurate. But does it make sense to have every different star type in such close proximity to each other? I'm sure somewhere in the universe that can happen. But the odds are against it.

Oh, it would be easy to create different types of stars, art wise. But being scientific accurate to what we know about star distribution, the smaller cooler dwarves are much more common than giants. I mean a total of about 4% is much higher than the .000001% for giant stars. Just food for thought.

I doubt that the devs will have a different types of stars for each star system. I can see a possibility for a brown dwarf or a red giant for some variation, but I'm expecting mostly the typical yellow/white dwarf stars. I can't see a neutron or a singularity, or white giants.

Does anyone want to hazard a guess to how many celestial bodies will be in each star system? Everybody is talking like there will be a dozen or more CB per system. Which is definitely possible, but doesn't seem likely. Let's say there's 50 planets/moons. There can be a few large systems (10+ cb), or several smaller systems (<10 cb), or a mixture of the two. So it really depends on what the devs want to do. Do they want only a few external star systems or many star systems. Or they can surprise us with more CB and star systems than we ever would expect.

It seems that they are "show casing" some of the different changes/features they have done all in a meme format.

Lol, they are Easter eggs in KSP1. If you lookup the Easter eggs in the wiki or the KSP1 section of the forum, you should see them. I can tell you that Angel-125 is using the crashed UFO on Kerbin to explain the reason for his Kerbin Flying Saucer (KFS) mod to exist. (Interesting mod if you want to try it.)

Yeah, I was thinking of the manual functions for MJ. Not the whole automation suite for the mod. The problem with the maneuver tweaker is it's hidden. You have to know it's there and available to use. Another problem is you lose access to it when the node you're working with decides to close when you jump to the target you want. These are the primary reasons why I hate the stock solutions to make maneuver nodes.

No, not really. You will still need to know which action to take with MJ. The only real differences between the stock maneuver node maker and MJ's maneuver node maker are; With stock you can combine the different axis into a single node, MJ can't do that. MJ you can only do one axis at a time. With MJ you can type the exact altitude you want, stock you're stuck using those stupid sliders or increase/decrease velocity buttons.

All KSP needs is a few loose threads here and there. Nothing meaningful by itself, but enough to spur curiosity to move over the next ridge, planet, star system. Let the players connect the dots for the story in their heads. Like the UFO or pyramids brings up different questions. It's the players to try to find the "answers."

It wouldn't be KSP without some bad jokes or puns. Really love it when you read something and go "oh God, that's terrible" with some of the puns.

Hmm... looks like you can mark different parts as favorites. Also seems like it will be easier to view the extended info in the description window.

Never realized that Jeb had something of a back story already. Hmm... that explains a lot.

Jeb, Bill, Bob, Val's back story should be "they survived long enough to train and send off the next "big four" Kerbalnauts. If you want individual stories for them, it should trail off. Jeb: I remember when....

Buggy or not, most games will disable achievements (for that save) if cheats or mods are used. Most devs only give achievements to players that only play the stock version, with stock rules and assets.

You're missing the point, sandbox has nothing to do with building. Sandbox is about choice on how to play the game. Open world is sandbox because you can choose where you want to go and in what order to do the goals/missions. MMO is sandbox because you can choose to stack bodies. You can choose to craft items. You can choose to mine. You can choose to become a merchant. You can choose to become a trader. RTS is sandbox because you can choose your tactics. You can choose your forces. You can choose what to attack or defend. City/Colony builders are sandbox because you can choose the layout of your roads. You can choose how to layout your buildings. You can choose what services to provide. You can choose what your taxes are. You can choose what maps to use. Factory builders are sandbox because you can choose your layout. You can choose what you want to upgrade. You can choose what to export. You can choose what rates you want. Survival games are sandbox because you can choose what resources to gather. You can choose what to attack or avoid. You can choose where and what to build. You can choose what to equip your character with. You can choose what to build with. Flight/driving sims are sandbox because you can choose your vehicle. You can choose your route. You can choose your upgrades. You can choose your tactics. You can choose how to pilot the vehicle. You can choose to crash. RPGs are sandbox because you can choose you character. You can choose your team. You can choose your skills. You can choose your powers. You can choose your attacks. Shooters can be sandbox because you can choose your weapons. You can choose your tactics. Now, do all games in these genres fall into the sandbox definition? No, there will always be exceptions. I've played shooters that are very linear. I've played RPGs that are linear. I've played flight/driving sims that are linear. I've played builders that are linear. Also, if you noticed that I bolded choice and choose a lot. That's because it's the primary component to sandbox games. You can choose to play how you want. Nowhere in the definition for sandbox does it say there must not be limits. Nowhere does it say there can't be goals. Nowhere does it say there can't be progressions. Nowhere does it say you can't have locked items/skills. Nowhere does it say you can't have rules and boundaries. So sandbox as a genre has games where you have a choice on how to play. Sandbox in a game means the same thing, you have the choice to play how you want. But remember, it doesn't say that there can't be rules or boundaries you have to abide by.

Yes, they technically are sandbox style games. You have the choice of what you want to do. You have a choice where to go. You have the choice how to solve the problem. GTA, RDR, Fallout series, hell even WOW, Everquest, Ultima online, Eve, or any other MMO fall under sandbox because you have a choice of where to go and what to do, even if you character wouldn't survive one encounter. The sandbox definition is so broad, it does include games that you would think it shouldn't. Or another way to think about it is any game where you have only one path, one choice, one way to complete the goal isn't a sandbox style game.

@Xelo I don't mean to be rude, but I'm too scatter brained today to read a wall of text. I've tried several times and was unable to do so. I posted that for a reason, it's the true definition of sandbox for games. Sandbox is a style of games that don't (severely) limit how the player decides to complete a task. But there are limits. Sandbox has morphed over time to only mean games where you have full discretion on how you play the game. (Rules be damned, I don't want them.) But that really isn't the case. All games have rules you need to follow, including KSP. The real in this issue thread lies in what rules do you need, what rules can you bend, and what rules you can ignore. That's the point of contention. Some people want full control over every aspect of play, even if it's not possible. Some people want free parts and resources to let their creativity free. Some people want to learn how to break the game, for reasons. Some people want to learn the systems before they are introduced in progression. Some people don't want to play with progression. And all these wants fall under the term "sandbox."

It doesn't help that the term "sandbox" for games is so broad. I mean that games like SimCity, GTA3, Gary's Mod, Minecraft all fall under the sandbox definition for games. (It's funny that the Wiki didn't cite more "modern" games like Space Engineers, KSP, Empyrion, Scrap Mechanic, Terra Tech, Factorio, DSP, Cities Skylines, Surviving Mars, Satisfactory, Valheim, Icarus, etc.) With so many games that fit the sandbox definition, everyone will have a different opinion to what sandbox means in the game sense.

No they shouldn't. I'm going to use the "this isn't human space program" argument. I can understand using modern, past, and theoretical equipment as inspiration for parts. Most items will have similar design principles for a functional part. (Bells for engines for example.) But direct copies, no. If they do work with ESA or NASA on a project in the future, then the fundamental design should be relayed, but with a Kerbal twist.

Sandbox should allow you to play the game as intended without progression or costs, to the free for all that the crazy contraptions are born. PS. I will remind you that the new star systems will be locked in the sandbox mode. (Initially at release anyway.) They will have to be discovered first. Nate did say this will be the case in one of the early interviews for KSP2. Something about internet points and ruining things for other people.

Thanks for bringing this up Pthigrivi. Everyone seems to be ignoring this want from the devs in this discussion. If anything LS related is added to the game, don't expect Kerbals to actually die or become nonfunctional. So you're just debating the next LS mod at this point.

No to all of it. I've bricked too many missions because of LS. Because of LS problems and such, I've got to the point of only doing unmanned missions outside of Kerbin's atmo before discontinuing use of them. That is what will end up happening in the long run. Most players, if they continue playing after a few failures because of LS, will only send unmanned missions. And that's not the point of KSP2. What's the point of colonies if you can't safely transport them to the colony sites because of LS failures. It's a huge HELL NO!!! to anything that can brick a players mission outside of their direct control.

An easy starting point is the need for resources. You don't want the lack of resources to interfere with creativity. So no resources for spawning crafts or buildings from the editors. Also the ability to turn on or off the need for resources during the flight. Another point is the progression itself. You are limiting the availability of parts or functions you can use until you reach a goal. You would want free reign with the parts selection and functions you want to use. Spawning points, the ability to build CAB/OAB makes this kind of moot, but that is an arbitrary point for an open world type of game.

No, just want to play with all the shiny new parts before they become available in progression. Learn how they work. And design some ships and colonies before I really need to. You're right, we just don't know. But there has to be a base to start from. Most things we know about the game so far don't really need progression to work. (Except population boom events, but there are workarounds.) Look at any game that has a sandbox mode. They either started as a sandbox type environment or sandbox was added afterwards. They all have the same basic principles in common. They all have some rules that you can't break. In KSP, the rocket theory, and general physics are those rules. (No, I'm not counting anything that can be considered a bug. Kraken based infinite propulsion drives.) The rest can be bent or ignored. So I can turn off the need for EC, that's one rule that can be ignored. But trying to place the Daedalus engine in KSCs VAB isn't going to work. It's physically larger than the VAB and makes sense that you can't do that. Want to abuse the part colliders to make a series of gears, well you're bending the intended use and some attachment rules for the parts. But can you ignore or bend the rocket theory, or general physics, no, you can't. You will always need a TWR of 1+ to lift straight off from a gravity source. You will always need enough horizontal speed to orbit a planetary body. You will always need an equal and opposite force to counter act a force that was applied. So most sandbox games have rules for them. It's just most people see the lack of arbitrary bindings as a freedom to do what they please. So any rules that makes sense for KSP2 sandbox, I'm not going to complain about. PS. I personally think Squad is to blame for people thinking they can whatever sized thing they wanted in the KSC. They didn't truly force size limits on the space you were building in. You could always move the craft out of bounds to build larger than the editor could actually handle.