shdwlrd

Cockpit = Command Bridge? I can see a multi level bridge. Command crew on one level, and "other" stations on the other level.

You can get to the setup screen from the space center. Did you restart KSP after you switched the mode before playing? When you change the play mode, you have to restart KSP for all the changes to take affect.

It's a toss up between the canyon leading into the east far side crater, or the northwest crater on the mun for the first ground colonies. The first orbital colony will be outside of Minmus's orbit within Kerbin's SOI.

It's a long standing gripe about the DS9 series. There was problems with the VFX shots keeping with the same scale, so it looked as the station was growing and shrinking from scene to scene, episode to episode. If you want a more info about DS9/Terok Nor or Star Trek in general, check out the link below. www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/cardassian_ships.htm#other

I don't know how you're going to pull off the growing and shrinking station like in DS9.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what should happen when LS runs out. At the end of the day, it's just a game. It's not worth getting into an argument about something that may or may not be included in it. I'll only use LS if there is good in game LS planner and I don't have to do any supply runs for anything that is marked station, base, or colony unless I want to.

Don't disagree on any single point, but the player should decide whether the Kerbals die or become inactive. Having you Kerbals die because you want to do something else and not paying attention to them, that's no fun, that's borderline eff this game.

That will probably change to a bunch of griping and calls to make it better. Better as being the way I want it, that is.

My only expectation is that the game releases in the time frame that was said. Everything else is hopes and dreams and a bunch of speculation.

Doesn't it...

I wouldn't want dozens of different tanks for resources either. (nightmares of early MKS of the past.) Looking at the released footage so far, most tanks look pretty standard for KSP1 even if they are using the new fuels/drives. (With the exception of the Orion drive, since that is a different beast on it's own.) It doesn't exclude the possibly of new tanks, but I think we may get a gift of stock resource switching to keep the parts catalog in check. It's been said and actually seen parts from KSP1 will also be in KSP2. Star theory will be adding an unknown number of larger parts for building these massive interstellar ships and colonies. Stock resource switching would keep the part count from growing exponentially. I know this is complete conjecture, but from a practicality standpoint, it make sense.

I'm taking "no comment" as they don't want to talk about it for whatever reasons. Whether is in the design phase or still a WIP or it's finished and don't want to reveal any real info just yet. It's my speculation that there will be a decent number of raw and manufactured resources based on what has been seen and identified so far. Just to be clear to what drives/fuels that as been ID'ed so far, fusion torch drives (Epstein drive), nuclear pulse detonation drive (Orion drive), metallic hydrogen fuels, magnetic constricted plasma drives (base technologies and types is unknown as of now), external fusion pellet drive. All of these will require different resources to power them. Since there won't be one magic ore to create all these different fuels types, there is going to be different base resources to manufacture the different fuel types. So I'm thinking ~12 different resources just for known fuel types. I'm not even including the possibility of having the resources for constructing colonies and craft or life support. In all reality, I don't care too much about how many different resources there will be in the game and how you get them. What I care about is not having to manually move all the different resources to where they need to be. If I have to plop a colony down to get resources, so be it. If I have to make rovers or crafts to move resources around, so be it. I just don't want to manually move them around unless I want to.

After watching the DasValdez interview with Nate Simpson from star theory, I think KSP2 is well covered from a resource standpoint. There looks to be different raw and processed resources. How many different resources was asked and a "no comment" was the reply. But as for the logistics of moving resources around, that wasn't specifically asked. So that part is still up for speculation. The info is at about 15:11 in the video.

Orbital Planning and Assembly Facilities or plain old space dock

Orbital Construction Facility Orbital Construction Yard Orbital Planning and Assembly Facility just spit balling here

It was the whole reverting your Kerbals from tourists that killed the USI-LS experience with me. The process was so broken, it wasn't worth the headache trying to do it in the field. Having the Kerbals go into hibernation is an interesting mechanic. Assuming that you have advanced enough probe cores, you wouldn't have to wake them up until you arrive at your destination. (That's what I use to do when I was using LS, freeze them after launch and wake them after arrival.) You wouldn't have to add any parts to do that, just send them to a hitchhiker and tell them to go to sleep. (A new use for the hitchhiker other than I think I will give my Kerbals more space to move around.) Wake them when they arrive at their destination, or when something goes wrong. That seems easy enough. After reading into some of the Q&A sessions with star theory, I think they already have the LS process planned out and they are keeping it a surprise for now. Now I'm really curious on what they are cooking up. I know they already have a plan for resource gathering and management, but can't talk about it. Maybe it's the same thing for life support.

Yeah, it a little too early to get to deep into the stock resource system. But if you want to do a mod, just be flexible for whatever surprises star theory have up their sleeves. But I do agree on making it easy to mod in a different or modified resource chain. Always share ideas, who knows, your idea may be added into the game as a stock item or spark a mod idea. You will have people will either support or be against the idea. They will supply their opinion, but you can gauge what you need to change or what you can move forward with.

GalCiv, hehehe, haven't played that in years. It really depends on how the logistics is setup. If you keep things the user must do to a minimum, it should be ok. If you drop a base or colony to gather/process resources, then build an orbital colony/spacedock, when you're finished with it, the resources are already being sent there. Relatively little fuss, nothing beyond what is expected. (No manual supply runs unless you want to.) You may have to wait for to get enough resources to build something, but with the LS aspect, the supplies are already flowing in, nothing you have to do.

Reminds me of MKS, if you're suggesting this for a future mod, cool. If you're thinking it should be stock, umm, no. Too complicated for stock, it has to be streamlined. But without knowing what resources star theory is going to put into KSP2, I personally wouldn't get to hung up on it.

I liked how USI:LS worked, but I hated the logistics side of it, and the planner was broken. For any type of life support to work and to keep the game exploration and building rockets based, you will need to relegate the logistics to a background function. That can apply to general resource collection and transportation too.

Honestly there's not much that would keep me from buying KSP2. There are a few things that would make me unhappy, but nothing that is a hard no.

Welcome to Kerbal Freight Hulling. The game where you explore the system, plant some colonies, and start hauling freight for the rest of your time playing. Seriously though, star theory needs to work out a background logistics system to move resources around. And no, I'm not taking about recording one mission and repeating it. I'm talking about you setup a base or colony and the resources automatically end up where they are needed. No setup, no fuss. I want to explore, not run endless supply runs to build my interstellar ships.

Yes I understand that. But, answer this, what game play value does having LS just for the colonies and not anything else? If you're going to implement LS for colonies, why not do it for everything?

With that thought in mind, what if the "colony" is there just to mine resources? You want it small and don't want to grow it any farther, but you need it continue mining. If the colony goes into hibernation, will it still mine resources? No, as per the definition of hibernation. That means you will still have to run supplies to them to keep them active. That's a hard no from me. If you mandate that you need a greenhouse or such per x number of Kerbals, that's doable as long as the colony doesn't grow beyond the hard cap. But that can also cause other problems when you actually visit the colony after the max population has been reached. That is another can of worms that will have to be dealt with. There's no easy way to work LS into the game at any level. To many variables, too many different opinions on what will work and how hard it needs to be. I believe that LS should be a consideration in a space type game, but it needs to add a value to the game, not create another headache to deal with or force you into only one style of play, especially with KSP.

The question was geared for gathering materials for in situ construction and fuel manufacturing. Not so much life support related. Life support should be in the hands of the modders, not stock. It's no fun when you spend 90% of your time in the game running supplies to this base, rotating the crew from this station. It really sucks when you have to abandon a mission because what was shown in the planning screen doesn't match what is actually happening. I've used TAC:LS and killed the whole crew on the 1st dark side transit because I didn't have enough power. That wasn't fun, I was very livid about that. It wasn't fun to kill multiple crews to learn that I needed 10x the power reserves just to keep the LS running, how long the food, water, O2 lasted, how well the recyclers actually worked. In the end, I found it wasn't worth it. I don't like killing Kerbals, especially in this manner. I've used USI:LS, see above for that failure. One thing I've learned was to always have a probe core on the ship, and once the Kerbals became tourists, you can only return them to Kerbin to fix the issue. It's no fun to plan a mission and only complete a portion of it because of bad info from the in game planner. Life support shouldn't be stock. I was willing to deal with it when I had 12+ hrs a week to play. Now I only have 2-3 hrs, if I actually have time and want to play KSP. I don't want to deal with it. I just want to do my mission, and not have to worry about it. If star theory wants to add life support, it's their game and they can. But it should be optional. If it's forced, I can see some modder writing something to turn it off very quickly. (I highly doubt the ST would force LS on the player. Just making a point.) The only way I will deal with life support again is 1) the LS planning tools are accurate to within 1% to what will actually happen in the game. 2) they don't add many parts to the craft. I don't want to add a half dozen parts just to gain 2 weeks. 3) anything marked as a colony, base, or station I don't have to manually resupply. I want KSP to feel like a game, not a job. I already have one of those. 4) it's non lethal and the Kerbals are recoverable in situ. (Again, it's a game, not a job.) I do believe in penalties for miss managing LS, but they should be as severe as the player chooses. 5) it doesn't detract from the aspect that KSP is a game, not a full fledged space simulator.