shdwlrd

Noticed that too. Was going to mention something but I remembered game physics. You know. One character that can 400kg of weight and not even notice. Or a character that pulls a gun the size of him out of their pocket or pack.

Ok... there is the thing that that no one touched on in this thread. Intel is only supporting and developing for the modern graphic API's. I don't know what DX version KSP is built on, but if it's not DX12 or any other modern API, KSP will run like crap on the Intel Arc cards.

And don't forget creative problem solving. Over the years of development, there have been some hints on how they want to alleviate the crawl of interstellar travel. I'm guessing that there will be more levels to the time warp that won't be accessible unless you're in interstellar space. Outside of that, the other methods quick interstellar have been totally shut down. The only other option is reducing the distances between the stars, but something tells me that is something that won't happen.

Backed... it would be fitting that a game using Lego style of construction to be made with Legos.

I don't blame you. The thing no one wants to understand; the late game drives and engines are based on theoretical designs. (MH engines included, think of Nertea's near future mod) None of the late game engines have/can be built/tested/flown because of human politics or gaps within human technology. This is a game where a fictional society that doesn't have those limitations. So if they want to build a nuclear detonation pulse drive, they can. If they want to build a fusion impulse drive, they can. If they want to use a linear particle accelerator for a drive, they can. As I said earlier in this thread, interstellar travel is going to suck. It's going to take a LONG time. It's not going to be fast, practical, or easy. It's just going to be possible, that's it. (Much like rowing a boat across the Atlantic. It's possible, but it's slow, energy intensive, not very practical now a days.) There won't be any instance gratification with interstellar travel in KSP2. You will have to be patient.

How else would you start your burn? Make a trajectory correction? There's no auto pilot. That's an understatement.

That is their intentions. It was said that there will be unfocused burns and burns while on rails. Why doesn't that feel like KSP? Because they are allowing you to run multiple missions at once? (Including missions that require long burns.)

Don't you mean fix the fun ruining and frustrating bugs? The game is very playable right now. (Even with my below spec PC.) It's just no fun to try to do anything more complicated than basic one shot and return missions.

@RocketRockington do you believe that both KSP2 and IG is a failure or that only IG is a failure and KSP2 can be salvaged?

I'm guessing you missed the not practical, convenient, or quick parts. Between the speeds and distances involved, you're basically limited to the local star cluster or just beyond. Plus, the overall play area is expected to be several lightyears (or multiple lightyears depending on the source) across. So every star in that sky box wouldn't be reachable anyway.

The fun part is building up the Kerbal civilization to be able to go interstellar by your own design. The actual journey to the new star is going to suck until you arrive. Then you start again in a new star system without the technological learning curve. When talking about interstellar travel for KSP, you can't think about how many stars can I visit in a single play through. Your thinking has to shift to; How am I going to get to the next star system? How am I going to establish my Kerbals there. How am I going to thrive here? You have to stop thinking of Star Trek/Wars level of technology and think of more of the Expanse level of technology. Yes, visiting hundreds of stars can be fun. But that's not the goal for KSP. The goal for KSP is to get to the point where interstellar travel is possible, not practical, convenient, or quick.

It's kinda funny, the 1060 6gb handles the game ok. Everyone is so worried about the 1650, but no one thinks about the fact that there is only a 5-10 fps difference between the two. (Depending on settings of course.) Average fps for my 1060 is looking at the ground is 9-15 and looking at the sky is 20-30. In space, a solid 30+.

I do feel you on this. When EA and the road map was announced, my expectations dropped to somewhere in between a basically functional game to feature parity to KSP1. KSP2 released a little worse than I expected, but well beyond a basically functional game. Fair enough. But what did bother me is after 2 patches, basic game play bugs still remained. My belief is we will eventually get a fully functional game. The question is when? Actions speak louder than words. And IG's actions are dictating that the dev time is going to take much longer than what was hinted to. (The only thing that rings true is IG is in it for the long game. The only problem is how long before PD and TTI say enough?) Very true. Nate was doing his job, hyping up the game. Unfortunately, somewhere down the line, things broke down and no one decided to set the record straight until it was too late. (I forget who originally said this.) It's a classic case of over promising and under preforming.

I've been in that camp since I played KSP2 for the first time. I'm sure we will get everything on the road map. But will it be good enough is the real question. To borrow your pizza analogy, I'm wanting a deep dish but I'm thinking we'll end up with a cheap frozen pizza.

Agreed, science at this point won't turn KSP2 into the vision that Intercept wants. As someone that never played science mode in KSP1, even I recognize the fact that science in KSP2 is just a step in the long-term game loop the developers are envisioning. Science isn't going to be the savior for KSP2. It's just going to be a tool for the features that haven't been released yet. When science is released, I can see a bunch of disappointed players because it will be a bunch of "toys" with no real purpose at the moment. Once resources is released, then science will become useful.

I can see why people think Intercept has failed KSP. Even the most "basic" of functions are not working properly. (Think functional, but not ready for release.) I think most players would have a different opinion if the most "basic" functionality was in a better state. (Less major core systems bugs) Intercept has a plan KSP2. It's hard to see with the lack of reminders or updates to the point where Intercept wants to go with KSP2. Basically KSP2 has an "endgame" if you want to pursue it. It's just hard to see at the moment with nothing but a basic yet broken sandbox version the players have now.

What you're describing is the game play loop that was hinted by Intercept for a long time. Nothing new, but details how each step works can make or break the game.

But Intercept has already solved the collision under warp issue. So that example is moot for KSP2. Yes, it applies to KSP1, but was solved for KSP2.

Makes sense. It would be really daft on Intercept's part if they didn't expand the rules for active and inactive crafts when applying the physics simulation.

Is this due too poor optimization or wrong choice of algorithm? Or is it do to just not time to solve all the outlying conditions and processes with such large time steps?

Doesn't surprise me it doesn't fly well. The real SR's and A-12s had very narrow maneuvering envelopes. The pilots had to be very careful and deliberate while flying them or they could end up in trouble.

It's up to you. Watch some YT and Twitch vods on it to see if it's your style of game. I hated it because of the grind of it. If there was a way to explore without the horrible grind, I wouldn't mind playing it. @RocketRockington assessment is very on point for it. It can be very painful and unintuitive to play.

Nah, I didn't miss it. It really seems like a lot of KSP players will have a tough time with multiplayer whether it's lack of interest with their group of friends or they don't want to cat herd rando players. (Despite the general negativity of most multiplayer games, I really don't see that being a serious problem with KSP. It will happen, but not to the level of shooter part 385.) The big thing with KSP that doesn't apply to Minecraft or Space Engineers is you can't collaborate/assist while designing and building. That's a single player thing with KSP. You can fly with each other, but if you need to design a new craft, you're better off going to single player because there's no chance of interacting with anyone during the designing phase of KSP. (That probably will change with colonies, but for now it's moot.) Yes I agree, most of the internet needs a good amount of bleach to remove the funk. The reason I hang around this forum is because of the excellent work the moderation team does.

As you know, most multiplayer communities are rife with toxic players, cheaters, and just plain the ugly side of human behavior. Then there are the kicks and/or bans for breaking stupid crap "community" rules. (Rocket League head-on deadlock for example) or just not being good enough or small mistakes. That's what most people think about when thinking about multiplayer and don't want to deal with it. (Most fps, mmo games) Then of course, there's a ton of people who don't like playing with randos. That will also kill the want for multiplayer for people who are the only person in their group of friends that plays the game. My personal reasons for disliking public multiplayer is I can't stand the toxic behavior and language. With my friends, I'm not chatty and usually doing my own thing. So why play multiplayer?

Exactly. That's why you look for multiple sources when talking about game performance.