shdwlrd

The computer can deal with the inherent drift that the vessels do in orbit better.

Ha, speak for yourself. I've been playing for years and it still takes me 45min to a hour to rendezvous and dock manually. Some sort of automation for maneuvers and atmospheric autopilot would be nice to have stock. Something like KER could be handy. A stock implementation of something similar to MM would be a huge boon for tinkerers and modders. For mapping and expanded sciences, that should be stock. Unless you want a different look for bases, base mods really isn't necessary.

Merbol is actually a moon to an unnamed (i think) exo-planet. Kerbin's moons are still called the Mun and Minmus.

Nothing listed here i would consider spoiling the game. But these are game play questions they rather not answer at the moment. They seem to be perfectionists when they decide to show us something. (Frankly, I don't blame them.)

If you look through this album, you can see the ship and station from different angles. http://imgur.com/gallery/FWgOopW PS, I didn't make this album.

Yep, either allow surface attachment or any open stack node to add the merged craft or subassembly would make the process so much easier use.

I think Nate was referring to the new planets and solar systems. He didn't seem to want sandbox players to have access to all the information for the new systems from the start.

I can't wait to be able to build ships side by side. Since I've been building modular ships, it would make it so much easier to line everything up and make sure everything docks properly. Also it would make loading the newest rovers into cargo crafts so much easier.

Looking at the title, I was thinking you were referring to some VFX or something. But after reading what you were actually thinking, that would be very cool. I would love to make some flying boats using stock parts.

Don't forget about Val.

everything shown was just rendered for the trailer only. it doesn't depict any functionality that will actually be in the game. if you want to see what has been confirmed so far, check out the different dev videos and articles out there.

MechJeb Pilot Assistant Part Commander NavHud Kerbal Engineer Redux ScanSat Hanger Grid

I don't think orbital colonies and stations have been discussed much either. Outside of the orbital VAB, the rest of the shown esthetic, in my opinion, looks like over sized MKS/FFT and stock parts. So there really isn't much to pick apart from what we seen so far. I do really hope they find an esthetic that isn't too blah for the station and colony parts. The parts themselves, I would hope to see some gravity rings, some parts purposely built for mooring larger craft, an actual hanger of some type to store utility crafts (would spawn and despawn crafts as necessary), a station sized power source that doesn't rely on dozens of solar panels or RTGs.

That seems very reasonable. But KSP isn't a simple FPS/RPG or top down action game. There are many different parts that make KSP what it is. You have the building aspect, you have the flight sim, you have playable characters, you have high precision of location in an extremely large play area, you have realistic physics. There are many different parts of KSP that have to work well together to make good gameplay footage. If any single one is lacking, why make it? I'm not saying I wouldn't want to see it, but I feel that it's too soon to show something that doesn't represent what the finished product would look like.

They haven't shown the map screen, the Mun, Kerbin, the finalized flight UI, the map screen UI. When they did show a launch, they got lambasted about the noodle rocket and all the associated physics and part properties. All they were showing at the time was they have working base for the game, and some new explosion fx. That's why I'm saying it's too early to see game play footage right now.

I think it's too early for any real game play footage to be seen right now. I would expect to start seeing it once they get towards the end of the beta. I'm sure that they have something playable, but knowing this community, they want to be very careful about what they release to the public right now. They don't want the haunting of features they weren't able to implement.

@Lisias I was being very general with my summary of what you discovered and the fix you implemented, but thank you for the detailed explanations. This is reminding me of a change log from the 1.0.x days. Squad did something to the clamping of forces. I don't remember which version Squad made the change. The way I noticed was because KER stopped reporting all balls for movement when landed or splashed and stopped. I know in .90 and earlier and early 1.0 days KER used to show no movement, and you wouldn't drift. (Unless you were resting on physics-less parts. Weird things could happen depending on the situation.) Now it never settles on zero when stopped. If someone can find that change log, maybe we can get Squad to revisit that change and see if it's truly necessary now.

Well you confirmed the thought I had with the wheels since Squad updated the plug-in they use for handling the wheels. Poor settings not working well with the physics engine. But I didn't realize it was the total sum of all the parts was exasperating the issue. OK, so what you are saying, the game is trying to simulate all the forces and do to compounding errors, the force applied is overwhelming the friction setting or causing the part to "hop" across the surface. And your fix is to "zero out" the forces.

@Lisias What did you do to solve the drifting wheels and parts problems? Is it something I can do with the base game? PS, Love the mini OPT plane.

The demo for it was really cool.

I can't vote unless all fields are filled, all well. I will buy KSP2, but I'm not excited about any of the features you listed. I'm excited about colonies, interstellar travel, color switching of the parts and suits. I'm hoping for better performance and visuals.

Hahahaha... isn't that true with most software out there?

I'm just going to quote myself from your other thread. My opinions haven't changed and I don't feel like retyping it.

Are you referring to the stock surface experiments or the stock science system in general?

If you don't want to buy a game because it's missing something that you feel is necessary but really isn't, so be it. Don't buy it.