shdwlrd

I figured that. Just had to add some clean numbers for it to make sense. (For me at least. ) I don't know what would be the best solution. Keep the real scale distances between the stars and potentially scare off players from going interstellar. Or you can say the Kerbol system is in an area where the star density is much higher, so the stars can be closer.

Considering that 1ly for Kerbin equals 106.5 ly days for Earth. If real distances are used, then, for example, Proxima Centauri would be a little more than 12 ly for the Kerbal scale. It would make sense to do some scaling of the distances, but not to the extreme of the typical scaling used in KSP. Maybe scale the distances by 1/3 or 1/2?

The Avorion parts menu works if you're not doing pick and place for each and every part. Unfortunately, I've never liked how Avorion did the part selection. It's difficult to see what is available or not. Also there's too much detail with the parts info to fit within the little info window. The best option is allow the parts menu to be moved to there you would prefer it, but I'm sure there will be limits though.

Thanks for explaining the thought process Nertea. Hopefully that will quell some of the debate and bickering.

I really wish I had something like this when I started playing KSP. It took me weeks to figure out what roles the engines played and years to find out some of my roles were wrong.

Well, looks like the mysterious LF is methane. Ok. At least we have an answer now. Now, what is going to happen with the tanks? Are they going to have fuel switching? Is there going to be one tank for each single fuel type? PS. I can't believe that a bunch of gamers can't suspend their ties to the real world and allow the rules and realties of a fantasy world to take precedence.

Yes, I do believe that it will be that small. (I can't believe that I'm calling 170*1015 - 227*1015 m3 a small area.) You may be right; the play area could be larger than what I'm saying. But at what point will they lose the sub mm precision that Intercept is promising and need? At point does the PQS system eat too much into your performance? I'll concede with AU as you can define it as the distance between Kerbin and Kerbol. (13.6 million km) But the distance is much shorter than the distance between the earth and the sun. (147-152 million km) Let's define the constants that match between RL and the KSP universe. Length/distance is meters. Velocity is meters per second. Time is seconds, minutes, hours. The speed of light in a vacuum. Now, let's define the constants that don't match between RL and the KSP universe. Time, days and years. Days on earth is 24 hrs whereas days on Kerbin are 6 hrs. A year for earth is 365.25, 24 hr days whereas a year for Kerbin is 426.09, 6 hr days. Figuring out the distance of a light year is a function of velocity*time in seconds. Now, because the orbital period is vastly different between the earth and Kerbin, the distance traveled for light will be vastly different for what would be considered a year. So, light would travel 9,460,730,472,580,800m in earths orbital period of 31,557,600s whereas light would travel 2,759,153,377,863,610m in Kerbin's orbital period of 9,203,545s. Ok? So, one KSP light year will equal 106.52 light days in RL. By that measure, you can say in KSP that a star is 3 lys away whereas the position is actually about .98 ly in RL. So yes, a 6-8 ly area is big enough to house multiple star systems is the Kerbin definition of a light year is used. But if you must insist that a star must be 3-4 RL lys away from Kerbol, then the distance as seen by the Kerbals will be 9-12ly away. PS. I'm leaving the full numbers for the light year distances for the effect of how far the light would have traveled. PPS. I can't believe that a bunch of gamers can't suspend their ties to the real world and allow the rules and realties of a fantasy world to take precedence. Shesh, haven't any of you played a paper RPG and had a GM bend or break the laws of the world for dramatic effect, story, or to make things easier?

@GoldForest I agree, we really don't know how Intercept will interpret a lightyear. But it shouldn't be what we expect a lightyear will be. Somewhere in the early interviews, Nate say they increased the playable area from about 1.3 ly of KSP1 to several lys when talking about their new PQS upgrades. Now, I do believe at this point, he is using the typical definition of a lightyear. Lets say the playable area is 6-8lys by our standards. If the Kerbol system in the center of this playable area. I can't see them adding the new star systems at the very edge of the playable area. That is what will happen in they use the standard definition of lightyear. So a lightyear will have to be reduced. But again, we don't know how they will define a lightyear in KSP2. Yes, they can scale the distance the same way they did for the Kerbol system. That doesn't make sense in this scenario. It will take less than one Kerbin year to reach that distance. So what can be done? Well, use the Kerbin year and adjust the definition of lightyear to that. Also, you can't really use AU as defined in KSP also. The definition of AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Well, the Earth doesn't exist in this universe. So it doesn't make sense. You have to remember, any units of measure that are not defined in the game and are derived from characteristics from our universe, won't play well in the KSP universe. So we either have change the definitions to fit within the KSP universe or everything will seem off as how we would understand it. (Except for parsec, the definition allows for flexibility with the distances. Again, we will need to observe the KSP2 universe to define the actual distances. So at this time, it's standard distance as known from the Earth, wouldn't be valid.)

It will be really dependent on parts availability. But I would love to build a modern Battlestar styled colony ship. I would also attempt a StarTrek styled space dock for orbital construction.

That's one view of colonies. I'm not going geek out to the material side of colony construction. As long as the items have reasonable material costs, I'll be happy. If there will be different structural properties for the different materials or parts, I would hope they will noted in a plain way. It could be done either by the description or visually. (Preferably visually.) I like the vision of complex and unusual uses for the colony modules. But I also agree with regex about colonies shouldn't be a hugely complicated affair. There should be enough to build up a functional colony quickly. Then there should be the extras to create the modern architectural jewel if the want is there.

I guess Intercept was a really good NDA if the gaming journalists are scouring the forums and using members speculation as source material. Or modern game journalists aren't as good at networking as they used to be.

A lightyear would be different for a Kerbal. Since a Kerbin year is different than a Earth year, the actual distance would be shorter. You have to remember that one Kerbin year is about 1/3 of one Earth year. (Remember, Kerbin days are 6 hrs long and it takes 426, 6 hr days for one orbit. So one Kerbin year equals 106.5 days for Earth.)

My issue is everything shown so for is just cylinders and domes. Very bland shapes basically. I'm not against it, but I would like to see a little variety with what you can do without clipping things together. I know that there was plans for surface attached parts to help with the bland designs. (See the colonies show & tells for the quote from Nate.) Some greebling would help a little, but some other building shapes would help a lot. Materials used? I really don't care much if it's realistic or not. Or even viable in RL. It just needs to look good and to fit the part. So if it looks like a concrete and glass building, awesome. If it looks like a metal skinned structure, awesome. I really don't care as long as it looks good.

Only after finding the system and visiting it. Sorry, Intercept is very adamant about people not spoiling the new systems and planets on day one.

Yes, it can. The overall problems stays the same. How do you level up dozens of Kerbals avoiding the problems with random generation and the tedium of micromanagement. Having Kerbals level up by doing a task isn't a bad way to tackle one of the problems. It doesn't solve the volume and micromanagement. Personally, I think specific skills shouldn't be applied to any Kerbals apon generation. The skills that they learn should be determined by the roles they are most used for. (I still feel adding specific roles to KSP1 was a stupid idea. The only reason I'm entertaining it for KSP2 is it can be made a useful game mechanic.) At that point you can follow a Kerbal and hand craft their skill set or just randomly assign them to a task and they will excel. That way if you want to micromanage your Kerbals, you can. Or you just not care and put whomever you want on a task. I guess I'm on the "whatever my Kerbals do, they excel in that camp."

I find it amusing that people are stressing about graphics performance for a game where high frame rates isn't necessary. KSP isn't a shooter, platformer, or VR where the higher the frame rates are, the better you can play or eliminate motion sickness. Unless Intercept makes heavy use of ray tracing, I wouldn't worry much about graphics performance. (You can have all those pretty reflections without ray tracing btw.) I would be more concerned about the physics and background performance than anything else. It's the physics and background performance that makes KSP unenjoyable for me to play anymore. The only real concern I have is that KSP2 will only run good on Intel processors. I've switched to AMD processors because Intel was too expensive at the times I upgraded. (I don't buy bleeding edge tech and AMD was the better performer for the amount I was willing to spend.) I would really like to see comparable performance between the two. As it stands now, I don't play KSP1 because even with Ryzen based processors, KSP still runs like crap. (Fortunately this isn't the case for most games I play. Most games have had a performance bump from thanks to the newer processors.)

I'm completely aware the assets that was shown may not end up in the final release of the game. (Too much geeking out reading production diaries and creator's/artist's memoirs has taught me that.) I'm more referring to how Intercept has made it a point to try not to invalidate any previous statements on how and what will be in the game. I know they have been very careful about what info is released to the community. So the actual assets in the show & tell may not end up in the game. The fuels they specified, should be. As GoldForest said, they probably won't be in the EA, but would be present in the final release. The real point of contention I keep seeing is people keep comparing the equipment and fuels in the game to their real world counterparts, eventhough there may not be any direct correlation to them. Yes, they used real life engines as inspiration for their assets, but they are not copies or replicas of the real thing. That means that Intercept can do whatever they want with them. The same goes with comparing KSP2 to KSP1. Eventhough everything may seem the same, there can be major differences between the two.

You can see them here. I understand that plans can and do change, but I don't think Intercept would explain and show off assets without using them either in part or as is.

Ahh... I see what you mean now. Yeah, that was a very messy character. But isn't anything that has to do with Dr. Who messy?

Isn't this a common saying with anything regarding the Kerbals?

Everyone seems to forget about this thread. Section 2.2 is about what fuels have been confirmed. @K^2 A stock resource table is a good method for adding the new resources when the devs are ready to do so. I really hope that the devs have a similar mindset as you.

No, not really. There maybe a target part count range before the games' performance begins to drop noticeably, but no hard limits on part counts. The actual limitations on part count would be your system specs and your tolerance for game slow downs. Nate describes this in one of the early interviews. The only promise that Intercept has made regarding part count is that you should be able to make an interstellar ship by an orbital colony with little to no performance degradation. So 1000+ parts in physics range should be at playable frame rates (24+ fps), not the current slide show that KSP1 presents with as few as 300 parts.

One limit would be the maximum size of the rocket you can build. It has already been confirmed that there will be hard limits on the rocket size build in the VAB. (Orbital VAB won't have size limits.) Another would be the amount of resources required. Building colonies will take massive amounts or resources. (They will be built on location, not landed.) Another could be a limited rate of resource production from the KSC. It may take a long time to get enough of a resource to even consider a launch. Another is just gravity. You can launch larger payloads from the Mun or Minmus than you can from Kerbin as they weigh less. Before I forget, interstellar travel is another reason not to send everything from Kerbin. It will take decades for it to arrive. So there are plenty of reasons to build up colonies and not to launch everything from Kerbin.

Unless it's an ERP solution. ERP providers will make a profit no matter how many different ways they include to enter an order. Obviously KSP isn't ERP software. I wouldn't expect that.

I can see someone trying to cheat the system with this one. (With some succeeding.) I was intending it to work like some of the Hardship: Shipbreaker achievements, you don't lose any achievements, just the counter resets. (Salvage X number of reactors without a meltdown or salvage X number of ships without an explosion. (Harder than you would think.))