shdwlrd

I'm sure someone will take on that challenge.

Everything I suggested would be the stock defaults. There is no reason not to have the different sub functions being modular. What I suggested would add different QoL features without having to rely on a mod to do something, nor bringing a true autopilot into the game. Image how much easier rovers would be to control is the SAS actually behaved like a car SAS? How much easier would it be if the roll controls didn't get passed to the vehicle unless you needed them. How much easier would you be able to fly planes if you could actually set the trim? How much did you want to remap your controls depending on the use case for the craft? No hidden or impossible to use commands because you can't release a key or didn't know the key bind existed. (Like the trim keys.) The example of the VTOL rover, there would be nothing stopping you to add enough flight specific settings for make it functional VTOL. But you would have to select the mode you want, flight mode or driving mode. (That doesn't mean you can't do either or in the wrong mode, just having it in the correct mode would make life easier.) But at some point, you can make it too complicated, so finding the right balance is key.

Very true with both statements. The Kerbals don't have to be puppets where you have to control everything they do. Let them do their thing. One central source for information will be necessary. Also, one central source for planning. The need to manipulate your background logistics easily and efficiently will grow as your colonies do. The more bases/colonies/shipments/Kerbals you have, the greater the need not to waste time manually doing stuff. The buildings can be present at the KSC or built on the colonies themselves. (I like the idea of having them both at the KSC and colonies. That way you don't have to leave a colony to update your logistics network or transfer some Kerbals from another colony or put a new freighter into production.) They will have to be visually distinctive compared to the other hab structures so you can easily find them. Or they can be accessed by can PAW in the colony.

Very true, I've gotten the same sense. But when everyone is so focused on craft automation and ignoring background automation for colonies and logistics, might as well put input for both. I'd rather concentrate on the colony and logistics automation than craft automation. My opinion on autopilots and such is all over other threads. And to this day, there are players that believe KSP should be played manually with no QoL features. Whom every says otherwise is playing the game wrong, yada-yada-yada. Until a moderator shuts down the thread. Very little discussion on the background automation has been meaningful. Just abstract ideas, no real meat to the idea. Nothing to really discuss. I have a better picture of what I like to see now compared to when the game was announced. But any discussion goes to autopilots and craft. (Well how else are background resource transfers supposed to happen. Shesh.) See what I mean, you can't have one without the other. Sadly they are interconnected and the argument about autopilots will win.

My personal take on this. 1. No, using rendezvous and docking as an example. I personally will take a hour and a half to two hours to rendezvous and dock. Most of the time spent docking. MJ can do the same in about 15min. Everyone doesn't have the time to spend getting good at a game. 2. Everything in KSP can get repetitive. So everything can get automated? Seriously, allow the user to choose what they want to automate. If the user wants to directly control their craft, awesome. If the user just wants to plan the route and just ride along, awesome. 3. No extra parts for crafts, part modules are ok. No unsuitable parts for colonies. Costs should be in line with what the item is used for. 4. Colonies only. Colonies can instruct craft. Command pods and probes control the crafts functions. 5. Doesn't make sense. Not everything you want to automate can be recorded. (Launching resupply missions when X resource is below 25%.) 6. I agree with plan everything, but get rid of the recording. See above. 7. Agree with that one.

I'm the same, but Kerbin always felt empty and any ground scatter that was added is poor at best. (I've seen better ground scatter in games from the late '90s.) I think the better question is "How accurate do you want the whole simulation?" The physics is only one part of the simulation, how the objects act in the simulation is the other part of the equation. You touched on that later in you post.

Probably will mess something up and end up watching the tutorial for the fun of it.

Without directly quoting anyone, my opinion is the possible stock implementation of function control for craft would depend on the primary purpose of the craft. If the craft is meant as a rover, choosing a ground configuration would change how the SAS works, ignore commands that are used in flight, (Ex. Ignoring pitch and roll inputs.) disable some map/ui functions used for flight while adding functions that are better suited for ground operation. If a craft is to be used as an atmospheric plane, then choosing plane mode would again change how the SAS functions, change the map/ui functions available, allow for input remapping to better suit atmospheric flight. (Ex. Better access to the control surface trims.) If the craft would be used as a space craft, the controls and functions would be the same as the currently are in KSP1. This would be the default setting as it could be used in all scenarios. Anything beyond these 3 settings would be a mod. So if you wanted to add automatic functions, autopilots, improved functions beyond stock, those could be modded in using the above examples.

@Vl3d OK, that is worth a years delay. Also the Unreal demo is weird. A hole pops into the terrain and the surface debris goes flying. Where is the debris from the ground itself? It's weird.

You're definitely grabbing all of the ideas out there. Floating colonies and underwater harvesting will be necessary for some of the planets shown already. More that likely there will be some stock parts for water usage.

I see your point, but consider this. Do you rip out a cockpit of a plane, frame and all just to update the avionics? No, you just remove the old avionics and replace them with new ones. There are planes out there that were built before glass cockpits were a thing, but have been updated with glass cockpits. You don't have to update the structure of a command pod to update the capabilities. That's the whole point I'm trying to convey. You can use the MK3 pod for a lander, main control point, an escape capsule, a reentry vehicle, separately or together. It does make sense to be able to add or remove functionally as needed. Not to have dozens to pods that looks the same that do slightly different things. That we the whole point of my gripe earlier in the thread, it's stupid to add or repeat parts to add functionality to crafts. Just add the functionally to the one part and be done with it. PS, don't know if you're being sarcastic with using the Apollo lander for Mars. We both know that it wouldn't work because the Apollo landers only have enough thrust & DV to land on the moon and return to orbit. But to directly answer your remark, it wouldn't matter. The flight control systems on the Apollo landers relied on different sensors to determine it's position in space. How the craft reacts would depend on the programing, and the programing can be changed. So the Apollo lander could be used to land on Mars, as long as the correct landing profile was programed into the flight control computer.

In KSP1 it is possible to build rotating stations and have them produce gravity. But it’s also KSP, so it doesn't like trying anything like that. So if you try something like that, you're inviting the Kraken to come play with your station. Centrifugal forces do work in KSP, but we will have to see how craft assembly handles ring structures first. Then we will need to see how KSP2 handles the physics interactions that causes it. Because we all know that KSP1 really doesn't like loops in the craft structure, nor does it like things spinning at any meaningful rates. We'll have to wait and see. (I don't think it will long before these questions are answered.)

I'm not seeing any reason not to try building one in game. But as a stock option, no. Even as a mod, I would have to say that a completed tube is a no go. If it was released as sections that you have to build up, that would be an interesting mod to have.

It's still a part. Why just add it to the command pods or probe cores and then you select the functions you want before launch. If you want to update, you will need another VAB, maintenance area, or engineer to update the software list. This way you don't have to recover or tear apart a craft in the field to update it.

And how big would that be? Are you thinking about the size of the Babylon stations from Babylon 5, or the Medina/Nauvoo station from the Expanse, or the stations seen in Interstellar?

I don't know how to approach this without sounding hyper critical, no offense is intended. The problem with the overall automation setup is everyone thinks that you need a new part for every function. I've hate having to add warts to my craft to get a specific function. I will just patch the parts out and add the functionality to the appropriate stock parts. Did I mention I hate ship warts? Just make it so when you build the craft you can add the functions you want before launch. Now if you want to add a control center to the KSC or colony, I'm down for that. It makes sense to have one centralized building for that function. But don't make me build a new building for each function if the buildings are equivalent to 10 story office buildings. You can host several businesses in that type of space. So at that point, it becomes a waste of materials to add functionality in that manner. Now with that out of the way. I like to have the ability to add one centralized building to control all your logistics, production, gathering, and crew/colonists. Something like that would be very useful once you have several colonies operational and have your transfer routes established. You wouldn't have to play "where is he?" or "who's doing what?" game. It would get very tedious bouncing around to figure out what's going on in the background, and making adjustments to your production and gathering individually. It would make sense to be able to make global adjustments that effect all your colonies. This should be available once you establish your first colony, but the true sense of the power of this shouldn't be realized until you have a few colonies operational. The cost shouldn't be more than a standard habitation building to construct. The cost would be with the required manpower to efficiently run the operation. Maybe 5-20 workers per section depending on what function they need to control. (You don't really need many Kerbals for production control, but for HR (Kerbal Resources?) that can vary with the total number of colonists you have.)

The good thing is you're always in the future compared to most everyone else on the planet.

I think it was somewhere between Duna and Jool, but I can't be sure.

Thought the meetings would be a bit more lively. It's literally like watching the grass grow.

Any mod that automatically controls your craft. MJ is an example of an autopilot. So you're allowed to share DLL class files? DLL's are small programs that are launched by the and run beside the game. I'm thinking that the console makers would not like user based programs being ran on their hardware. And if they do, I can't imagine the hurdles the user will have to go through.

Not in the way your expecting. It seemingly will be tied to your progress in career, or it will have locations hidden until you discover them. What would be left to discover if the devs explain every aspect of the game? What fun will there be if you knew everything that was coming and already knew how to overcome each challenge? That seems boring to me.

Why would you think this is worrying? With the latest show and tell with the procedural radiators, they were made for the fact that there was no good way to control late game heat generation with the parts they had on hand. (Whether they were the KSP1 parts or new parts that they created, it doesn’t matter.) That is telling me that they are far enough along in the development process to start balancing systems for the game. Game balancing usually happens during the end of the development cycle and during the beta cycle. Since Nertea was one of the artists that made the radiators. (He was hired by Intercept not too long ago.) This is telling me that they are ending alpha soon or are in the beta already and making parts to solve problems that their current part selection can't handle. So the latest show and tell is a big clue to where they are in the development process. You have to remember, Intercept is very sneaky with the info they drop. You have to read between the lines with the posted articles and comments at times. NDA's are a B and they will never tell you anything without approval from their PR staff. (Including if they have plans to attend a con or not.) So why worry? Unless you have a true financial stake in KSP2 releasing on time, there is nothing to get upset or worried about. Would it be disappointing if there is another delay. Well, yes, it would be. But disappointment is apart of life. I'd rather be disappointed by a game being delayed than by a situation that directly negatively affects me.

@BowlerHatGuy2 that's fine for basic part mods. I'm wondering about mods that add functionality to the game. Would you be able to share autopilots, planning addons, tool kits that maybe required for some mods to work? Basically separate programs that run with KSP. With console makers being really paranoid about the software running on their systems, I don't see consoles have much selection of helpful mods or plug-ins. (Unless you build the script in-game.) I'm basically using the fact that Cities Skylines on consoles don't have access to the one most useful mod for that game, TM:PE. They have buildings, vehicles, network items, maps, but none of the truly useful mods for Cities.

In one or two of the early interviews with Nate. I'm thinking it was ShadowZone and/or Snark were it is said.

There are people who will see something like that as a sign of a problem. For some reason they don't trust Intercept at their word eventhough they have no real stake in the success or failure of KSP2.