shdwlrd

It would be nice to hear something, I wouldn't expect it though.

That's a good idea. From what has been shown so far, KSP2 would need someway to switch the resources in the tanks. Maybe star theory already has something working that is a kin to a part, resource switching. We already know that texture switching is going to be stock. That is definitely something that star theory can leverage to reduce the visible part counts, but give the players some more flexibility with the size and style of parts to use without going full procedural parts. But the only downside I can see is having to create or modify multiples of models. I can also see just changing only the necessary axes to correspond with the size or height you want. On the other hand, they can have some really clever solution that would solve the whole tank stacking weirdness when it comes to resources.

They work fine with each other. Just be aware that the resources required by MKS can't be supplied by Pathfinder and vice versa. For surface bases you'll need both MKS and Pathfinder converters depending on what you want to do. I recommend keeping the Pathfinder and MKS components physically separate from each other. You can keep both of the in the same area though. I preferred to use WBT for resource transfers, but you can use USI if you want. Hope that helps.

You're right, tweakscale can be abused. But if you only limit the types and sizes parts you can use use it with, I don't see any real downside. Plus it would clean up the parts list. For example, instead of one tank for each size in the parts list, you can have one part, but change the size of it. Helpful. Now it shouldn't be used for command pods or engines. (Unless you're making a replica of something.) Also tweakscale would be easier to implement than a procedural part system. Tweakscale is just changing the absolute scale of the model used plus some live tweaks to the part configuration. A procedural part has to be set up to be pushed or pulled in any dimension to change its shape. Then a program written to allow you to do that and calculate the specs for it.

cool, you like flying and doing maneuvers manually. Now your opinion is known. But using an autopilot and having automated maneuvers is very common today for standard aviation and spaceflight. So why can't it be used or included in KSP? We might not learn a skill? What if someone can't figure out how to do that skill? What if someone doesn't have time to figure out or perform the skill they learned? What if someone doesn't have the ability to do a skill you think is required to play KSP? Tell them they can't play KSP? KSP wouldn't have lasted this long or reached as wide of an audience that it has if the helper tools weren't in the game or available as mods. Autopilots are a tool, nothing else. If someone prefers to rely a tool for most things in KSP, so be it. Don't say using a tool is cheating because you feel differently. We all play KSP in our own way.

Realism for the sake of realism would destroy the fun of KSP. Adding something that was sorely missing from KSP1 but wouldn't impact gameplay much would be welcomed. (Persistent rotation is one thing that comes to mind. Scansat is another.) Weather, I'm on the fence about that. I would love to see clouds and such, but I don't like the not being able to see aspect of it nor it having major effects on your craft. Something like tweakscale would be welcomed, just to declutter the parts list some.

Then why start it again? Anyway, KSP needs some automation. MJ is good for newer players to help them figure out what's going on. And for players who don't want to do or don't have the time to do long complicated series of maneuvers. Is MJ perfect, no, but is it helpful, yes. K-OS is perfectly fine to add too. If you have the drive and time to learn to write, then test, and tweak your scripts. More power to you, go ahead and use it. Some people don't have the programmers mindset, math ability, or patience to use it and will never touch it. I personally don't have the time, drive, or patience to do learn K-OS or any type of scripting. (I don't enjoy programming.) So I'd rather see MJ or some derivative of it in KSP2.

To keep it from tumbling while reentering, slow down so the reentry effects are minimal. Also make sure you have enough exposed control surfaces to the rear of the craft.

It was implied than world firsts and milestones could cause a population growths. But there may be other events too.

I can see how the updated index software would make a huge difference within the editors. It would bring the VR experience to all aspects of KSP. It would be cool, really cool. Now if we actually see it in the future, who knows.

I don't play multiplayer. Most people I know only play FPS, which I suck at and don't enjoy playing. This sounds like a good question for a poll, but in another section of the forum.

Cryo ship, put them to sleep so you don't have to entertain them for decades.

LGG can't be star theory, he has adopted enough mods to keep him busy all the time.

I would like to see the drive models for the ones the community has ID'ed so far. (Except the Orion drive, if you follow Roverdude's mods you know what it looks like.)

May I ask, why the Jupiter 2 from the movie? Why not the one from the reboot from Netflix? Why not the the ships used in the original series? Why the Lost in Space franchise? Why not one of the more popular franchises out there? I can see you are a big fan of this ship, but I seriously doubt that star theory would touch this. I personally would love to see some scifi and real crafts made, but I'd ask for it as a mod or create it myself. Something very specific like this would be out of scope unless they did a dlc with multiple ships. Again, I doubt that will happen.

No Kentucky route zero or Tell Tale type releases. That bs is annoying, and down right rude when the studio closes its doors before they finish it.

Kind of early to ask that, but I'll bite. Yes, after it has been released for awhile and most bugs have been squashed.

To expand on this, the developers are overhyping the game, run, it's going to be bad. (Hold it, people are already saying that. Never mind.) Don't worry, this is normal. Yes, there are some developers that communicate regularly, but they are the exception.

50 euro, ~55.50 US dollars. No harm with waiting for a sale, if you can wait that long.

I'm thinking something that is connectionless. Something along the lines of simple resources, pathfinder, mks. All have the ability to transfer resources without a direct connection. A lot more convenient for surface bases.

I'm guessing that you mean this ship? At the front there looks to be a couple ssto's. They won't be able to drop the necessary equipment to start a surface colony. They could collect and ferry raw materials to colony ship that may have the orbital colony base hidden somewhere on it. From there, it can produce a surface colony base and needed drop craft to establish a surface colony. To the questionat hand, it's plausible that something akin to kis/kas would be stock. It seems plausible that ksp2 would have stock resource switching too. It's also plausible that there would be something akin to simple resource sharing. There's just not enough info at this time to make a determination of what features will be included in ksp2. But honestly, that's not a bad guess, it seems reasonable.

No release date has been announced yet. I'm sure you will see it in all the social media platforms when it's announced.

Hear, hear... RSS was out of scope for KSP1, why would it be on the radar for star theory as something for KSP2? Maybe an addon system in the future, that the Kerbals can visit? I can see that. But something to add to the base game as the base system, even as an option. It's so far out of the scope for KSP, it's something that shouldn't be considered before the launch of the game. If star theory wants to add some of the missing realism gripes, so be it. But RSS has nothing to do with the design scope KSP. RSS should be a mod only, it shouldn't be an option that few people will try, and even less will continue using.

That seems reasonable for constructing and editing the base. (I hope you can edit them anyway.) I'm hoping that there is no manual transportation of resources. I can understand manually getting the initial base parts and resources in place, but beyond that, resource hauling gets boring quick. I like the idea of networking a bunch of colonies and bases together to automatically handle the routine resource distribution between them.

Ok, I can see that. I did like that with KSP, but the music selected isn't good for repeated loops. Play KSP for the game play... not the music.