shdwlrd

There's also: performance of the game, unknown at this time; changing the Kerbol system, the Kerbol system is getting an art pass, no other changes; physics the game will use, unknown at this time, n-body in specific scenarios; reality of the dangers of space, unknown, hinted that there may be some; minimum specs for the game, unknown at this time; Squad isn't developing KSP2, Intercept is the developer; career and science modes are being replaced by a progression mode; how does the progression mode work, unknown at this time; Life support, confirmed for colonies, minor effects for not having it (lowered efficiency and no growth, not death of colony) Number of new stars; unknown at this time Will colonies be useful; yes, mining, converting of resources and building of new ships and buildings are confirmed FTL travel; no, that includes worm holes, star gates, warp drives, jump drives Different fuel types; yes

Land with the appropriate supplies, open the BAE, found a colony.

I would have to say no. It would be intrusive to game play. No one wants to wait for hours or years game time for a comms transmission to make it to the destination.

Didn't notice that. That is kind of scary.

How a kerbal looks once you rescue them after several decades.

That could be it, or that they are too symmetrical.

The plant skinned one looks like he has spent too much time in the sun and is peeling. All of them look kind of creepy up close though.

I'd rather pay the asking price then buy dlc later. I've been burned on the whole pass antics before. Most dlc I won't touch unless it's on sale anyway.

I do apologize if I missed what your intended meaning was. The way your response was worded wasn't clear to what you were thinking. But it’s out of your control. The studio may take note, but its the corporate masters who have the final say. Being concerned about something you can't directly control is wasted energy. As I said earlier, guarded optimism is the best route. You hope for the best but expect the worst.

You're implying that even though the devs are avid KSP fans, they shouldn't make a sequel to KSP. You're implying than someone who has no or limited knowledge of KSP make KSP2. That is surely a good way to destroy the KSP franchise. If you're worried about what the corporate side of things. That's not your concern nor do you have control over that. It's not something you have to stress about. Guarded optimism is the best approach in this case. KSP2 won't be complete rehash of KSP1 with extra bells and whistles. KSP2 is seaming being build to include all the missing activities from KSP1 while hopefully making it more stable, better performing and more visually attractive. If you're worried that KSP2 won't tick all the boxes for your expectations, you should expect it won't but be very happy if it does. I personally don't think that KSP2 will tick all the boxes for my expectations, but one thing I'm sure of is that the devs will nail the essence that is KSP.

The devs have spent many hours playing KSP. Nate Simpson claims to have at least 2000 hrs put into KSP. They do know the original. They will get it right.

This has been speculated on before. Without having the software available to test, no one can say for certain.

So much this. Plus a dedicated sandbox mode, even if it's limited to the Kerbol system. I would want play with the new rockets and systems before getting in a progression type of play.

All I'm thinking is compressor blades flying everywhere once it warms up. I can understand using MH for the afterburner. But as the normal fuel source, no. The combustion area is already near the critical temperature for the components using standard kerosene based aviation fuels.

Without being able to see the number of downloads, it would be impossible to tell. The best I can come up with is looking at the number of people following the mod. Since only 73 users are following RSS on the forum and 93 following in github, I would have to say the overall number of players actually playing with RSS is small compared to people using the stock system.

Looking at the number of people following RSS in the forum and in github. Then extrapolating the number of people from there.

Hold on. Are you saying that jet engines can use metallic hydrogen? Beautiful work on the plumes and afterburner exhaust.

It's a huge waste of resources for the (at the most) thousand players who would actually use it. This would be better off as a mod.

Unless they are modeled after some of the Russian and older US engines. Under full throttle, they won't burn cleanly and produce a ton of soot.

Fair enough

Some people don't like change, can't see that there are different ways to do things, can't embrace the sayings "there's more than one way to skin a cat" and "if it's stupid and works, it's not stupid"

Well, yes. I've been using MJ from .21. Without MJ I would have quit playing. I would have never gotten to find out how fun and rewarding KSP could be. Nor I would have found out how beautiful the Kerbol system could be. You see, using a keyboard and mouse to play flight and driving sims is a serious handicap for me. I need to use a joystick, hotas, or a gamepad since very fine control is needed along with very course controls. Since KSP's controller support was terrible, I had no choice. (I hope that KSP2 controller support is much better.) My problem is that I have a hard time locating the proper key to hit, at the right time nor do I have an instinctual feeling when to let go of the key. (This is something I've never have been able to overcome in my 30 years of PC gaming.) So something like a simple bank turn or keeping the maneuver marker on the pro/retrograde marker is a serious chore for me. That's no fun. With MJ and other autopilots I've found, I can still enjoy playing KSP.

Hmm... automation of flights and autopilots are different things. The concept of automating the flight happens in the background. The only real interaction for the flight is setting a few options. An autopilot is something that helps the pilot. It's in your face and you can choose to use it or not. The autopilot argument Here's a few points of contention I keep seeing with the argument for an autopilot. I will never use it, so don't add it to the game; the player won't learn anything; it's a waste of development resources; and it should added for convenience and to aid the player. I'll focus on the arguments for against adding an autopilot. The argument of I never use it, so don't add it to the game. Awesome, good for you. Adding it will not affect what you are doing, so why worry about it. Adding an autopilot is a waste of resources. It's the devs who will decide whether or not they have the resources to develop it or not. It's not a waste of resources if the majority of players find it useful in some way. The argument about learning a skill before you're allowed to use an autopilot for it. That thought process is total BS. It's a game, not real life. If the player doesn't want to learn how to land a plane, they don't have to. If the player can't master landing a plane, that shouldn't stop the player from enjoying the game and forcing the player to quit playing because they can't use a tool to help them land a plane because they can't do it themselves. That thought process is akin to not being able to use spelling and grammar checking until you write a hundred pages of documents without spelling or grammar errors. And having to start over whenever you start using a new instance of whatever word processer you're using. The player won't learn a skill because of the autopilot. It's a game. The player doesn't need to learn a skill if they don't want to. Or imagine that the player sees what is happening and successfully learns that skill because they can see what needs to be done to complete that task. Some people need to see how a complicated task is done before they can do it themselves. I'm all for having a full featured autopilot included in the game from the very beginning and allowing the player to choose whether or not to use it. But if it's not added by Intercept and is done with a mod, so be it. Automation of flights The automation of flights should be available as soon as you have a need for it. Since we don't know if crew rotations will be a necessity, I would like to see it begin as soon as you have one base that supplies resources and one base that consumes resources. So when you get your first few bases down in the early game, the automation of flights should be available.

I don't know, maybe the bomblets would be considered fuel and usable with only the drive. The drive itself looks to be a minimum size of 3.5 meters. So you wouldn't have access to the bomblets themselves. And the drive would be too large to effectively transport somewhere.

that's awesome