shdwlrd

I don't disagree, but we don't know if the Kerbals will gain experience individually, as a whole, or not at all. If they do gain experience, we have no idea how that mechanic will work and what effects that will have in game. There will be a lot changes from KSP1 to KSP2 systems wise. Anything based on the career and science modes of play in KSP1 should be considered in doubt. The devs have said the career and science modes are going to be replaced in KSP2. As far as I'm aware, only Kerbal personality traits have been confirmed and explained. The devs haven't mentioned anything about experience.

This would just be another variation on the VAB/BAE editors. It's one thing to replace a solar panel or a radiator. Yeah, just send a Kerbal out to fix it. It's another to strip them all and replace them with a better solution. This method is quicker to remove the parts you don't want and place the new parts exactly where you want them.

I think the misunderstanding is that everyone is thinking that LS would be required for everything that leaves Kerbin's atmosphere. That makes sense. I'm not disagreeing with that point. What if LS is actually intercrated in a craft. The built in recyclers are efficient enough for a handful of Kerbals for it not to matter. When it comes to colonies, you still can have your Kerbals survive with the basic LS. If you want the colony to grow and be happy, you will need increase the LS supply to help support the increased population and exceed the needs for the colonists. So LS is there, but you don't need to add a bunch of unsightly parts to your craft. At the colony level, you have the option to add more variety to the colony by adding LS if desired.

Nate just confirmed that there will be no need for LS if you don't want to use it. It's in the article that Dientus linked above.

I really like this idea. It would solve the problem of what do I do with the colony ship once you reach a new star system. It would make sense to rearrange the modules to make an orbital colony than tear down the whole ship just to build the same thing. It would also be helpful for in-situ upgrades so you don't have to recover the ship. Just dock it to a station or just do the upgrade while in orbit somewhere. I can see the limits being: What supplies you have on hand. (To limit what you can actually do.) What help you may have. (Is there only one engineer or is there a whole team.) How much time you have to do the upgrade. (It will take X amount of time.) What facilities are available to help. (Docked to a shipyard or just to some lonely little station.)

That was the major issue I had with LS mods. You could never produce more than you consumed. You would end up bricking a lot of bases you setup if you didn't micromanage them. This was more or less what my take on the brief explanation Nate gave for LS. It would be something that was helpful but optional to do. No Kerbals dying off if you ignore them. Just a good boost to productivity if you didn't.

Life support will seem to only apply to colonies, and if you only want them to grow or to be efficient. Outside of that, it wouldn't be necessary. Which is something I would prefer.

Some people want us to go hunt down the sources they mention. jk Probably forgot or wasn't able to grab the link.

Yes you can, but you won't be using colony parts. Intercept already has confirmed that there will be parts larger than 5m. If you ever used FFT, Coyote, Near Future suite, or DSEV. That is closer to the middle of the size range that Intercept is alluding to. Remember "sky scraper sized ships" is a quote from Nate himself.

I have to agree with @K^2 Just because it's show in an early pre-alpha trailer doesn't mean that something is going to be in the game immediately apon release, if ever. (It would be cool if robotics are in the game at release. I'm personally not expecting it.)

If I remember right, this case was a jury trial, not a bench trial. The jury set the award amount. The vast majority of the award was pain and suffering and lawyers fees. (Yes, in the US you can get sue for the immediate pain suffered and any past or future hardships.) McDonald's counter sued and won back the majority of the pain and suffering amount. Now I'm not siding with McDonald's on this one. They knew they served their coffee at near boiling temperature. They didn't care. More than likely the payment offered was suggested by their insurance company. (Most insurance companies are notoriously cheap, and don't value a person's body or health very highly... that's a different discussion though.) If they would have covered the medical costs, the suit wouldn't of happened. McDonald's would have started a bad precedent and opened themselves and other corporations for fraudulent claims if they did that. (I don't blame them for that thought process.) The effect that actually happened was huge payments and counter suits to recover the grossly exaggerated pain and suffering awards. What happens now is many corporations will force a mediation or bench trail instead of a jury trial when faced with a class action or civil suit. (Most ELUA updates have been specifying this.) A mediator or judge will be more favorable to a corporation with the award amounts.

The want and ability to litigate here in the US is absurd. Too many advertisements for getting paid for injuries, whether the injury was your fault, negligence, or pure act of God. Too many lawyers willing to go along because they will get paid either way. Too many judges willing to hear them and not just toss them. As for the lack of common sense, I will say it's more purposeful ignorance. Every one by the time they're five knows that if something is hot, it could burn you. If something is sharp, it can cut you. If you fall, it can hurt. You shouldn't need a warning if something could obviously hurt you, but hear we are today. Everything needs a warning label, even the obvious stuff.

Pandaman is correct. Warnings on common sense things is to provide a shield from litigation. Not for showing hidden life altering dangers like you can find on/in heavy machinery and hazardous areas.

I guess you forgot that the creative director is using his young children as guinea pigs to see if the tutorials are effective at explaining the concept they want to convey. If a young child can figure out what concept is being conveyed, an adult should be able to. Kind of reminds me of how the US military used cartoons to explain complex ideas during WW2.

Why would there need to be a discussion among the fans about this? Squad is helping Intercept, what is there to discuss. The fate of Squad? The perceived change in time line?

You could ask the creator or one of the maintainers to explain how it works. Or you can get a coder friend to look at the git to figure out the internals.

You know how this forum can be. If not explained, people will throw out ideas and try to justify them. If explained, people will complain that it's not how they invisioned it.

Very disappointing for a gaming expo

How do you think they got the maps that are used in the wiki? The thing with ScanSat is you have an interactive map you can see where you're at. So you can plan where to go next. Makes life much easier. Yes, I hope they do something better for KSP2.

ScanSat is what you're looking for. [1.10.1] SCANsat [v20.4] -- Real Scanning, Real Science, at Warp Speed! [September 9, 2020] - Add-on Releases - Kerbal Space Program Forums

The mod that allows you to scan and see the biomes is called ScanSat. Or you can look on the KSP Wiki for each planet. KER will allow you to see which biome you're in while flying/driving. You can also use Kerbnet to find which biome you're in. (I don't use it, the ScanSat/KER combination is much better.)

@The Aziz Thanks for posting the link. @TLTay you were right, live streamed HR training...

So basically that was the T2 presentation?

Is there a VOD or transcript for this?

If they are liking the kerbals to the WH40K Orks, I can see some variations in skin tones. (I know, most games only show them as green. The source books claim their skin tones will range from a light green to a very dark green.) Another thing I would like to see is variations in the individual kerbals physical builds. (Like the skinny and buff kerbals used in the tutorials.)