shdwlrd

Like seeing the technical side of game development. It looks like the collision detection subsystem will be well used throughout the game, not just for crafts or parts.

Or believe in modders will port or create them.

But you can. The maneuver planner allows very fine entry of the values. Any changes will display on the map screen. If you're thinking about the actual equation, there are sources out there that can show you what they would look like. The only exception is the rocket equation, sort of. All the info is there, but you will need to figure out which portions of the equation the game is working with at which time.

The only reason to show the math would be satisfy the curious. Yes it could be useful to see what numbers goes where in the many equations used, but for most players, they could care less. The only reasons I can see using anything like that is in an educational setting, or in mod creation.

Old news and it shows the ugly side of running a business. (Any business, not just software development.) Not much else to say about that. We're lucky that the principle personnel decided to continue with the project with a new studio. Typically that situation would be a death knell for a project or freeze production for years before development would start again. We're lucky that the development team are such passionate fans of KSP to continue and do it right by the fans. (By most fans anyways.) And we're lucky that T2 and PD have the patience to allow Intercept to work on the project for as long as they have without forcing a release before they were ready. But you have to understand, eventually T2 and PD will force the release of the product to start recouping the money spent. All we can do is hope they won't screw it up. (By now, Nate and the staff have more than proven KSP2 is in good hands, and shouldn't be a dumpster fire once released.)

Thanks for finding that interview. Yes, the frustration in arresting the rotation of an out of control craft is real, but not only for new players. Anyone who has built large stations knows about that pain too. The availability of the right parts and better SAS in the beginning would help avoid that situation for beginners. Better physics and joint behaviors would help with the giant crafts and stations that you will need to build. I've never played with the persistent rotation mod. But if it works as advertised, I don't see how you can use that and thrusting on rails as an exploit. The only thing I can see happening is spinning fast enough to tear the ship apart. With the advanced collision detection that was featured a little while ago, I can't imagine many exploits coming from this specific topic. Manually controlling a craft under warp, I don't see that happening. I think you will need a flight plan or maneuver setup for thrusting in time warp to actually see a controlled flight. If there isn't anything setup, you're at the whims of the physics engine and whatever comes from that. (Errors and all.)

I forget where this is mentioned, but persistent rotation will be a thing in KSP2. It will be necessary for the whole thrust on rails thing.

That was one of my biggest pet peeves with the science and career modes in KSP1. Even the early satellites could figure out when it was time to transmit data and was able to pick up where it left off. The other is that there was no way in vanilla to determine how much EC you needed until you were already on mission. None of the power conversations made sense, nor was there any explanation of the units used.

Don't forget about the squished sphere (disk).

We'll have to wait and see

No warp drives, jump drives, stargates, or wormholes. That will be mods only.

No info has been released on multiplayer yet.

I'm guessing the title says it all. This isn't new information anyway. KSP didn't support it, nor are we expecting KSP2 to support Lagrange points.

At 10:17, talking about n-body physics.

Fair enough.

But that is changing the star system. Only an art update for the Kerbin system. Are you going to make me find the specific interview where Nate flat out says no additions or changes to the Kerbol system, only art and asset updates.

@Ahres I've used DOE in the past, primarily for the telescope mod I use to use. I've have forgotten about it since it was incompatible for so long. To be honest, I've never noticed that effect. I'm too busy either watching the navball or waiting for the "warp to" here to finish up. I'm never really paying attention to what is happening with the skybox.

I know you have been following KSP2 from the beginning and you should know the reasoning behind Intercept not changing the Kerbol system. Just in case you might have forgotten, the Kerbol system is the easy starting system for new players and familiar ground for veterans to get their bearings. That's the reason the Kerbol system isn't changing.

There's one thing about science I would like to see, the ability to record your readings over time for certain things. The temperature of a certain area over a year. The differences in pressure as you fly around Kerbin. The temperature flux as you orbit a planet. The changes in gravity when orbiting an object. It could just be a simple graph displayed in the game or it could be outputed as a simple CSV file. It could be limited to the physics range, or one instrument at a time. Maybe it could be expanded to show production numbers for isru, energy use over time, population growth. Probably a better idea for a mod, but worth mentioning.

Getting out to push Waiting on dial up Forgetting to turn on SAS... ... Forgetting to turn off SAS

A quick question to everyone. Why whenever science is discussed, the subject turns to the tech tree. They are two different subjects. They may work together, but they are fundamental different. Science is an activity that can either give you information, points to spend, or the ability to unlock things in a game. Tech tree is the placement of parts to be purchased for use.

Nate did admit that he just pulled it off the top of his head.

Even if you break everything into a set of numbers, the human perception would be different. You can setup the exact same environment to perform a test to see who would see a point of light first. The differences in each persons eyes is a factor you can't account for. The differences in how each persons brain reacts to the signals from the eyes would be different. So you can't take peoples descriptions as fact since you can't prove what they see, when they see it. So saying that this must happen because someone says that is what happened to them is so unscientific it's not even funny.

@PDCWolf @OHara @SOXBLOX I'm finding your discussion really interesting but funny at the same time. Your disagreement is about the threshold of when you should be able to see the stars. But the points of proof being used are too varied in the situation, the technology used, the techniques used, and may not be true to the actual conditions present. Everybody's eyes are different, every lens is different, every image sensor is different. The very bases of the discussion, the threshold of when you can see stars, is subject to the situation, the person observing, and the equipment used. So no consensus can be made. There are too many variables at play.

The only parts being used from KSP1 are the part assets. Everything else should be Intercept's work.