shdwlrd

But again, I have to remind people that the career and science modes as we know them are going away. There will be a replacement mode for them. We have no specifics or anything beyond mentioning of this fact. The devs are aware of the shortcomings of these modes. They wouldn't have said they are replacing them if they didn't.

No disagreement here. All I want to add is, if Intercept is doing a custom solution(s) to what problems that they are seeing, they won't announce or advertise that fact. Their modus operandi is not to show/say something until it's working and almost complete. (Probably why we haven't heard anything about multiplayer yet.) Some people may find that frustrating. Nate was very blunt on that point, no information would be released until it was ready to do so. (Nate was much more tactful with his delivery.)

How does Unity play into bad gaming experience? There are many games that have good performance that use Unity. There are also many that have poor performance. (This also applies to UnReal Engine and custom inhouse engines too.) The difference between the two is knowing how to properly leverage the engine your using. Poor coding and improper usage of the tools provided/purchased will tank the games performance. (That applies to all software, not just games.) Your argument that Unity is the root cause of all of KSP's shortcomings and any future shortcomings in KSP2 is just false. This seems to me to be a personal dislike for Unity. If that is the case, just say you don't like Unity and leave it at that. There is too much proof that Unity was used to create good performing games.

Not going to happen. It's one of those cases where the experience was so poor, even the mediocre replacement is preferred. FAR was the primary reason for one of the few times I've rage quit KSP. The others were related to bugs within KSP or mods.

Not a bad idea. Without confirmation that contracts will be in the game. Can't say that this would be a non-starter or not.

After chewing on this for awhile, it could be playful way to tell you when game changing events occur. (More scope beyond the MIA/KIA events you described.) Boom events, discoveries, whatever else can be displayed as news headlines. Routine stuff could be small middle/back page filler style. It could be a cool way to keep track of your accomplishments in your game.

Are you referring to Squad helping Intercept or the other way around? Or that Squad personnel is transitioning to Intercept? Personnel transitioning from Squad to Intercept doesn't automatically mean the problems present in KSP1 will be present in KSP2.

Last time I played with FAR was in .90. After 1.0 I've lost interest because the aero model was serviceable.

Ok, there will be procedural wings, because creating wings with Lego-like parts suck. But the idea of procedural tanks is either never going to happen or be very limited in scope. The problem with procedural tanks is the wide variety of diameters involved in the game. With a diameter range of 0.6m to 15+m, having procedural widths doesn't make sense. Adjustable lengths does make sense, but more than likely, it will be limited if the devs go that direction. Nate has said that they want to keep the Lego-like feel for the game. That would mean you will still have to stack tanks.

I was letting you know how the parts are setup in the stock aerodynamic system and how they are balanced. That's all. I can't be objective about FAR because I've had horrible experiences using it. Planes that are properly balanced and constructed are either uncontrollable or don't fly. Rockets that can't make orbit even though everything is over built. (4200dv and 6.9twr, no flat leading edges) Planes that explode with the slightest g-load spike. (Less than 1g) Or once you reach above 3gs. (Really! Even commercial airliners can survive 3gs without breaking apart. Granted they will need inspection afterwards before flying again. Fighters can handle 8+gs within their normal flight regime.) Unreasonably high takeoff, landing, and stall speeds. No effective glider like effects because of the high stall speeds. Basically making the game unplayable for me. The only good thing FAR did for me was tell me about KE (KER).

@mcwaffles2003 I guess you missed one major part of my statement. Let me quote myself. In the clip, they are using heat shields as props. That is using a part not as intended. That's why you are seeing that effect.

One thing that needs to be understood about lift and drag in KSP1 is that they are user defined values in the config files. The drag cube(s) can be calculated automatically by the model or defined by the user. The center of mass, lift, and pressure is calculated by the model or can be defined by the user. That's where the quirkiness for aerodynamics comes into play. All the parts are balanced based on their shape and intended roll. If you use them outside of their roll, you will get some interesting aerodynamic features from them. In all reality, the aero simulation in KSP is fine. What needs to happen is the aerodynamics of the parts needs to be refined.

It's really hard to say. There's benefits and drawbacks to both. I personally like to have everything in front of me. But there are times where there are so many functions that you have no choice but to have a directory structure.

Mmmm.... no. Random part failure isn't in scope for KSP2. That would be something left up to the modders. Personally as someone with really bad luck when chance is involved; that's a big huge NO!

No artificial limits in the early game. Ex. Removing common, helpful functions because they may confuse new players. Forcing veteran players to grind through the basics before we can really start playing. (We can land on the mun already, Why must we prove it? Let us run.) Bugs (I know they happen, but it has to be said ) The kraken

At 0:15 looks to be a great place to put a colony. It's an incredible view from the water.

The old astronaut center is in the new KSC. What else needs to be added?

It would make sense just to pay for fuel and a minor refurbishment cost for something that was recovered. Either funds or resources could work in this case.

That is not actually correct. Yes, Intercept will be adding automation for some missions. Nothing more has been said about the subject. We don't know how it would work or what situations you can use automation. Everything you have said is player speculation. Even if it makes sense, don't count on it until it's confirmed by some official method.

I've never wanted to fly a stage back to the KSC or wherever to actually land it. But the biggest disappointment is when you have a bunch of parachutes on your first stages and have it considered destroyed when it fell out of physics range. It's definitely a WTH moment. I agree. If a stage is setup properly for a return flight or has enough parachutes for it to survive the landing, it should be considered recovered or added as debris to cleanup.

Do-nuh

It was never officially said, but it be against their goals for the game. One of the things the devs want to do is keep the craft building process as simple as possible. Lego like mind you. Making full procedural parts is a huge step away from that. Wings are the exception, it's easier to make different wing shapes with procedural parts than fixed block shapes. (Like how real Lego wings are a pita to make.) The other reason is the true scale of the crafts you will be able to make. We're talking about part sizes from 1.5m to 15+m diameter structural and fuel parts with some the are about 100m in diameter. (Documented) Remember, sky scraper sized craft. You don't want to do procedural with that range in sizes.

It would be a huge investment of time with very limited game play value. Honestly, after the 1st few times visiting the inside view, would you continue using that function? Probably not. KSP1 has 21 parts that can hold/transfer crew. KSP2 will be adding an unknown amount of crewed craft and colony parts. (About a dozen or so buildings have been shown already. Their sizes range from small industrial buildings to huge multi story housing/office/special use type buildings.) The craft parts would have IVA's. Those are kind of expected. Buildings on the hand is a different beast. The devs would basically have to setup apartment, office, and industrial complexs. In RL, it takes years to setup just one building, the devs will have to do several. It's not worth the time to do so.

Just because they added procedural wings doesn't mean they will be adding any other procedural parts. (Possibly maybe fairings.) The moment they add true procedural tanks, they will lose the Lego like feeling for building crafts. They may as will be making an advanced version of Simple Rockets.

This has been suggested before. Odds are that it isn't going to happen. Are you talking about while on EVA or IVA? On EVA, there has been suggestions made. Around the KSC and colonies on favorable planets. I can see Kerbals wandering around. In harsh environments, it wouldn't make sense unless they actually have a task to do outside. With EVA missions, it's probably a bad idea. You wouldn't want to always corral your Kerbals because they start wandering off. In IVA it would make sense to have the Kerbals appear busy in their seats. Yes please. That has been all but ruled out. The best we can hope for is automatic fuel switching and maybe adjustable tank lengths. Considering that they are making tutorials for all other aspects of the game, I think this would actually happen. Are talking like power armor, Ironman suit, or a powered frame? Not in the Kerbol system. But who knows what they have planned for the new star systems. That would be cool for the console users. But unfortunately, KerbalX is a fan run site like Spacedock. If Intercept set something along those lines up not using one of the commercial gaming sites out there. I'm sure it would be welcomed by the community. Also, welcome to the forums.