shdwlrd

Possibly it's like a creme puf. A thin, low density crust with a mostly liquid core. This planet really gives justification for some stock sub parts. I would want to know if its a huge crater or a huge floating land mass on a disguised water world.

After seeing what the rear "expansion" slots and the main board layout on that machine, it looks like you're SOL with getting a video card in your machine. Since KSP2 isn't supposed to release for about a year, save your funds and get a replacement machine close to the release date. It doesn't need to be fancy, you just have to pick a system that gives you ample room to add a video card if you want.

I think you already hit all the possible options for telescopes and their uses. I personally think some options are overkill, but it's fair to ask if someone wants all the options or not. I do think some type of telescope should be necessary for discovering and gathering information from the new solar systems. For some reason I think they won't be necessary to get to new stars though.

For some reason I think it's not going to be officially named "Mike," but it would be funny if the devs sneak in a line in the description referencing it.

I guess it will be called Mike from now on.

The music used in the video is reminiscence of something I heard on an anima somewhere...

I'm not sold on the name, but I love the description. Perfect for that planet.

Why put a poll up for something that Nate has said that they aren't going to do. Kerbin is the starting system. The devs want the players to start somewhere familiar and well known. There are benefits for that. One is the older players can jump right in and feel right at home in it. Another is the community can easily help the new players.

I'm thinking that Kerbals could be able to take a walk to relieve some stress. They do seem to love floating in space or standing around whatever moon/planet they are on.

That makes sense. It's easy to forget how stressed you are when you get stupid drunk. Hopefully they don't have to worry about the next morning.

The kerbals will eat MP?

I figured this was a given since Nate said they wouldn't included FTL drives in the game anyway.

This sums up my position. I don't care about the actual time frame. You quoted me out of context. I tried to tell you that I was asking for an official source and the person responded that it was their personal opinion. That conversation was done and over with. You refuse to understand that whatever future time frame KSP2 begins with can change depending on how long the player takes to advance the tech tree. Which doesn't even matter because we know that anything from KSP1 won't be directly compatible with KSP2. We don't know where the planets for KSP2 will start at. We don't know how KSP2 tech progression will be. There's too many unknowns to even speculate what time frame the future tech will come into play with KSP2.

The point is time is arbitrary in KSP. You can start playing at any point in time you want, and advance at any pace you want. So saying that KSP2 takes place 200 years in the future couldn't be true unless it's directly stated by the devs or in the case of the initial reply you're quoting, a matter of opinion.

Time warp has a tendency of screwing up perceived dates using planetary alignment.

I think everyone is going to see them whether it's intented or not. I really like the format for the tutorials, it would be easier to follow than the videos from YouTube. They also look better

I don't care what engines or technology the devs use or make up. I only care if the physics are as similar to what you would expect to happen.

I didn't vote for anything, but KSP is a GAME based on reality; not a true space flight simulator. So if the devs want to sidestep or ignore some elements of reality to make a better playing game, so be it. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if a fuel source or technology is truly viable or not. As long as KSP2 is fun to play and entertaining, that's all that matters.

If multi monitor support is a pita to get working, then add it later. This feature isn't important enough to delay the release of the game any further. It's nice to have, but not necessary.

I can see this for resource collection. For parts though, there will need some type of upgrade path. Like what @Meecrob said, without standard stats, it would limit how the community can help each other. Also it would make sharing crafts a pain with arbitrarily bonuses taked on. Eg. A craft could be good with the bonuses added to them, but be horrible with the stock stats.

The devs are saying that LS would be non punitive. The only thing that would happen is a decrease in productivity and efficiency, not loss of life, or useless kerbals.

It's a probe core with MJ, if you don't use the patch MJ for all. Outside of that, IDK, I don't use it, I find it creepy.

That's not enough windows, we need more.

Not much of a problem if you're lucky enough to have one of the newer curved wide screen monitors.

These rovers were made for exploration and crew transfers only. Any resources added was just to pull the CoM as low as possible. (I typically use RTGs for power.) I won't argue about full material transport rovers. They were hard to flip, but God forbid if you actually did. That's a long recovery mission bringing back 3k-12k of resources 200-300 units at a time.