shdwlrd

Unknown. Intercept hasn't said anything about it.

KSP1 has run its course. With the technical debt and inability to cleanly add on new features and optimizations. It makes sense to create a sequel to start from scratch to add wanted features, updates and optimizations. I don't believe the Kerbal charm will be lost with updated assets and expanded internal systems. I believe KSP2 will be breathing new life into KSP by expanding what is available to do in the stock game but leaving the core KSP experience intact.

I'm wondering if the Kerbal would be either knocked down or thrown if they walk into the wind turbine.

Ok, but you shouldn't be sitting there staring at or studying the cities and towns. You typically should be moving over or through them. At that point, they should become objects you need to avoid. It shouldn't matter if they are using a handful of models with different colors and textures. You shouldn't really notice that fact. I was thinking that would be a good way to populate Kerbin with cities and towns.

I'm guessing you never played city builder games. SimCity and Cities: Skylines don't have that many building types or many models for each type of building. If they are randomized well enough, you wouldn't notice unless you actually look for repeat buildings.

I will never understand the need to add weaponry to KSP and to blow each other up. I understand the need if you're building replicas of different crafts. (Or Mechs) But in general, why. There are better games out there to scratch that itch.

No not really. @K^2 gives a really good explanation why somewhere in this forum. Basically they have to keep the artists busy while the programmers are working on the backend things.

I do agree with you. My only hope that the devs will realize that anything that has to do with landing has to be active lot farther that 2km. Most commercial flights start their ILS lineup at about 10NM+ (18.5KM+) and must be on aligned on the ILS by 4.5NM (8.3KM) or they must abort the landing and try again. Most private planes doing a visual will start to land at ~2NM (3.7KM) but they are moving MUCH slower then their turbofan brethren. Landing direct from orbit; the guidance will have to start several hundred KM from the landing point for a tail sitter.

@StopIteration It's already been said that the game/tech progression will differ from KSP1. We don't know how it will work at the moment. It's been proven by the videos and screen shots from them that its the cost in materials, not funds, are required to build a craft. The need for funds will diminish as soon as you can build crafts at colonies. It would make sense to remove that need from the game all together. The only limiting factor is the amount of resources you can gather, process, transport and the time to do all of that.

More of what you're talking about would be the middle progression of the game. You would need to discover all that you're mentioning before even leaving the Kerbol system. Base/colony building will be necessary and is going to be a stock feature. You will have to mine and process a multitude of different resources in different locations in the solar system. You will have to create logistics networks to transport resources around the solar system. (There will be automation for that part.) The end game is sending a colony ship to start a new colony in a new solar system to start the cycle of exploration and expansion again. Basically, the devs have thought of everything you mentioned and will be incorporating it into the game. If you watch the show and tell videos and read the dev diaries for KSP2. They have already created and described a lot of what you suggested along with other information about the game.

It's definitely WIP. Nate said that on the previous page.

Tail landing manually... that usually ends in disaster. I will use either MJ or TCA. Landing planes, I can get about 1.5km away from my target and drive (taxi?) back. Basically landing is hard. Something to help you out wouldn't take away the challenge of something like landing. Even if it's something that shows you a descent or glide path that you have to follow. You will still have the challenge of keeping your craft in line but it would help you find the rhythm to eventually make landing easier overall.

Wouldn't that encourage someone to immediately kill one of the main four to have a statue of their favorite Kerbal? Nah, the statue stays as a general Kerbalnaut. They can put a MIA/KIA plaque elsewhere.

One could hope mods would be available on launch day. More than likely some type of tools and documentation will be available at launch or shortly thereafter.

That's the reason I've never liked it. I never made sense for an astronaut training center. If it was an administration building or housing for personnel at the KSC, I wouldn't care. It would fit the part. For the rest of what was shown, that's how it should look like.

Nice facilities, actually looks the part. I was kind of hoping to see a redesign of the astronaut center. I never cared for it in KSP1. All well. Everything is looking good, warts and all.

As you found out, noone really knows. With all the speculation abound with system specs, your guess is as good as anyone else's. That question won't be answered until Intercept actually posts something about it. Anyway, with the current shortages of electronic components, your best bet is to save funds and plan what you need to do upgrade wise after Intercept post what the system specs should be. (Unless you're planning it for other reasons, I would suggest waiting until the shortages start to ease.)

It's fair to say right now nothing in the game progression will be the same as KSP1. Without any info for the announced adventure mode, we can't say for sure what it would entail.

I would love to see Kervin as a living planet. Some large cities and towns would help so much to that point. When released, if they had areas setup for civilization and really generic buildings, it would help complete that view. Over time, they can update the buildings and styles to give the cities a more unique look to them.

Yes... exactly... Kerbals like that I would have no problem with the whole firey death thing.

One of the most disturbing reskins I've ever seen.

I play sandbox only. Science is boring and career is broken. The biggest failure is the tech tree. If it was put together in a sensible way, I would play career. (I know CTT is a thing, but I don't want to use it.)

First off, thanks, I'm trying. You're explaining how I learned how to do a proper gravity turn. I figured out how to fly the rocket, but I didn't know the proper technique to reach orbit. (I found MJ before I even knew who Scott Manley was.) And forget any type of manual vertical landing for me, I can't tell which way I'm drifting. (I can't see the movement of the ground nor make out the relative distance to the ground. I can't extrapolate distance of a 3d environment on a 2d plane. (It's not like I haven't tried to land vertically in the past seven years, I just can't do it.) It's funny you mentioned "fine muscle memory". What if you have one of the myriad of physical or neurological conditions that don't allow fine muscle control? What then? And removing the drama of the action? You're still sitting there hoping that the autopilot doesn't screw up or flake out on you. (Do you think that the SpaceX techs weren't nervous when they sent the 1st Crew Dragon up with astronauts? I bet all of them breathed a collective sigh of relief when that capsule safely splashed down.) Fighting or FPS games aren't really good examples for this debate. They require a level of muscle control and reaction times that go much farther than what KSP requires to be considered competent at the game. Mariokart on the other hand is perfect. You can still beat the Mariokart without cornering or racing perfectly. It's how you use your powerups. Now imagine you couldn't use the powerups in Mariokart until you beat the game. That's no fun and most players won't play it again. (I'm masochistic and have done it on a couple versions of the game.) Does crash landings count for the unlocking of the auto-landing? That's the only way I would ever be able to unlock it. Having an optional way to unlock a autopilot from the beginning would be one way to solve the issue. But the overall attitude of you can't have that function (landing) until you can prove you can do that function (landing) first is BS, especially in a game. If this was real life where mistakes could have real life and death consequences, I wouldn't be debating you. (I'm sure as hell would want the pilot landing the plane I'm on to know how to safely land the plane they are flying before they can use the auto-land system.) But it's a game. We're not sure if KSP2 will have an open sandbox mode like the first one or not. But we can surmise that here will be optional missions or contracts or something to help new players learn about the mechanics of KSP. Why would Intercept be making the animations explaining the concepts required to play KSP. Unfortunately this is a mechanic in different RTS or city building games and yes, it's very annoying. It's one thing to have to build a base up again to get access to what you unlocked, it's another to have to research it again to unlock it. How does this compare to KSP? KSP2 is being framed as a continuation of KSP1. So most everything available in KSP1 should be available from the start of KSP2. You shouldn't be starting with a capsule, parachute, and SBR. You should have everything you need to make a Mun or Minmus capable rocket from the start. Overall, I agree with you. The catch is that you don't have to prove you have the skills required to progress, you usually only have to collect items, points, or reach a certain milestone to progress. (There are exceptions but KSP isn't a combat or a challenge based game. It's about exploration, not proving you have the skills to procced.) You seem to be misunderstanding what I want in the game. I don't want something that I tell "fly me to Duna" and it does it automagically. On the actual player controlled craft, you shouldn't have to control the craft for100% of the flight. You should be able to setup an maneuver/waypoint (or series of maneuvers/waypoints) and be able to walkway or do something else. (Actual flying in KSP doesn't interest me anymore, but the designing and exploration still does.) The level of automation you seem to be referring to should only be reserved for the logistics flights once you reach that point. But here is the thing with autopilots, you still need to know what you want to do, how and where you want to execute it, and design the craft with enough stability for the autopilot and control the craft. If you don't do anyone of those things properly, no autopilot will be able to help you. You still need to learn how orbital mechanics works, design a plane/rocket properly, how the actual simulation works. I do understand the information overload for new players. There is a lot in KSP to take in. (I've been playing flight sims for years before I found KSP, so it was a new type of challenge for me.) I'm not saying you need to show a new player where it's located and how to use it right away. I'm just saying that it should be there, available to use for the players who don't need the hand holding. Good luck, and remember to take it one step at a time. I have several very intelligent, die hard gamer friends that walked away from KSP because they didn't understand it and nothing was explained in the game nor did they feel the need to look outside of the game for information. As for jacksepticeye, I've seen that video before. I blame Squad for not explaining anything or offering sources for information. As we know, Intercept is creating helpful explanations for every concept in the game. That's a very good question. We have no idea how the game is going to play like. A lot of the speculation and assumptions is that it will be the same as KSP1, which is reasonable but foolhardy. But there are things that won't change. Orbital mechanics won't change. How you design a stable plane or rocket won't change. How you fly a rocket or plane won't change. (At least at the physics level anyway, keybindings is a different story.) No where in the core pillars for KSP is stipulated that you have to fly. It's just "realistic space flight." KSP is a space/flight/driving/boating/submersible/designing sim. But nowhere is it stipulated that you have to actually control your creation 100% of the time; nor is it stipulated that you have to prove you know how to fly to be allowed to access an autopilot. As I replied to mcwaffles, "You seem to be misunderstanding what I want in the game. I don't want something that I tell "fly me to Duna" and it does it automagically. On the actual player controlled craft, you shouldn't have to control the craft for100% of the flight. You should be able to setup an maneuver/waypoint (or series of maneuvers/waypoints) and be able to walkway or do something else. (Actual flying in KSP doesn't interest me anymore, but the designing and exploration still does.) The level of automation you seem to be referring to should only be reserved for the logistics flights once you reach that point. But there are autonomous drones that can take off, flight a specific route and land (even on a moving aircraft carrier no less) that exist today. (Just being facetious.) Flight is necessary for KSP, but it isn't necessary to be at the controls 100% of the time. Nor is it necessary to prove you can fly before you can access an autopilot. As my reply to Pthigrivi states; "But the overall attitude of you can't have that function (landing) until you can prove you can do that function (landing) first is BS, especially in a game. If this was real life where mistakes could have real life and death consequences, I wouldn't be debating you. (I'm sure as hell would want the pilot landing the plane I'm on to know how to safely land the plane they are flying before they can use the auto-land system.) But it's a game." Both KSP 1 & 2 have a stories. It's a story of exploration and discovery. Most people won't see it, some will only see the journey, some will see the destination, but there is a story for both. Why won't you see the story? Because you are directly controlling (writing) the story and it will be different for everyone. (Much like how WW2 vets will tell you the facts of what they did, but to you it's a story. It's a matter of perspective.) Yes, agreed. So is Space Engineers, WOW, Elite Dangerous, Cities: Skylines, No Mans Sky, Subnutica, Factrio, Dyson Sphere Program, Freespace, Syndicate, or any number of games you have to learn a great amount of information about the game and spent a good amount of time learning it. No where did I say nor imply remove the requirement to learn the necessities to play KSP. All I suggested is to have an autopilot available from the beginning and not to prove you have the SKILLS to be able to have access to an autopilot. I will reference again my reply to mcwaffles; "You seem to be misunderstanding what I want in the game. I don't want something that I tell "fly me to Duna" and it does it automagically. On the actual player controlled craft, you shouldn't have to control the craft for100% of the flight. You should be able to setup an maneuver/waypoint (or series of maneuvers/waypoints) and be able to walkway or do something else. (Actual flying in KSP doesn't interest me anymore, but the designing and exploration still does.) The level of automation you seem to be referring to should only be reserved for the logistics flights once you reach that point.

Unknown at this time.

If it's the Intel based Macs, the conversion is pretty much straight forward for the MacOS prior to 14.1?. Some changes to the Linux code and you have a Mac version. (Or you can use boot camp and use either the Windows or Linux versions) The new A12? Macs are a different beast. They are Arm based, not x86. The coding would be different to optimize the performance.