JamesL86

I'm pretty sure what we are gonna get is co-op and that is it. You boot up your save, and your mate can join you. I wouldn't expect more than that.

Yea I think that would be fair. Though I am also imagining that reliability would be based on the kerbals doing training before launch as well as the overall experience level of the kerbals. Think about the way that kerbals currently gain levels based on the SOIs they have been to. This could just be a more complex and rich extension of that system.

That's a no from me also. Sure I'd be a little depressed if it did not come out until 2021 but as long as solid progress is being made by talented and passionate folks like those seen in the last dev vlog then I'm okay. Further, the last five years have left me with a substantial amount of Early Access Fatigue so I'd rather get a product that is at or at least near feature lock by the time we get our hands on it.

I'd also like to add that we could use alternate interiors for parts as well. In KSP1 for example, I'd like to use the sci-lab laid down on a planet but it bugs me to no end that that means the kerbals are sideways inside.

I think what I'd want if I could make a specific recommendation is something like the mod Kerbal Space Transport System. However I'd like the success of the mission to be based on the complexity of the said mission combined with the experience and personality of the kerbal(s) performing it. Given the ability to create mission profiles ourselves could also allow a means of creating our own contracts instead of relying on pregen ones. However, from a game design perspective we would need the ability to "drop in" on the mission if we want to as well. I don't want to be deprived of the option to fly something myself if need be.

I guess that's kind of my point though. Kerbals never crash their rockets. We crash them. The kerbals are just helpless/useless passengers. I've gone back and forth over this many times over the years. I've had whole careers where I barely launched any crewed missions. I've also had huge multi-planetary colonizing careers. In both cases I always came to the same conclusion. Kerbals need to be able to do things themselves and not just be action figures for us to play with. I've been able to partially deal with this aspect using various mods that let me fool myself into thinking they are acting on their own. Mods like MechJeb for example. Ultimately however it gets to a point where I end up reverting back to unmanned missions for most things. If all the kerbals do is look cute then we might as well not have them and all go play Simple Rocket 2. I sincerely hope that this issue is resolved in KSP2. Otherwise I doubt I'll get anywhere near the 2000-3000 hours I got out of KSP1.

I'd really love it if the kerbals actually had to perform, or help perform, missions. I'm one of those players that use a lot of automation mods like MechJeb etc. I get a lot more fun out of designing vehicles and mission profiles vs. actually operating the mission myself. I would be beside myself if kerbals in each category could run a mission and that mission success be based on kerbal skill/level vs. difficulty of the mission. This could also be a way of sidestepping some of the issues with running missions simultaneously. Please give me a tiny aspect of "The Sims" in KSP.

Kerbal Construction Time was recently updated. I've been using that in my heavily modded install, was well as Snacks, and Kerbal Health. These three have ensured that even with KAC installed, I never have too much going on at once in my career.

Yea I think a nice way to do it would be to go step by step with what the math is and what it means and then give you the option on the amount of information the game gives you after that. Like do you go full KER or do you do it like you do with Excel etc.

This right here. I'll often spend hours or even days working on a design. Why? Well it's definitely not because its boring. Be it a rocket, station, or spaceplane, every little detail is important to me. Every ounce of fuel must be accounted for. Efficiency is the game I play. Heck, its often assumed that you need about 3500dV to get to orbit. Using the Gravity Turn mod to provide controlled and repeatable launches, I've been able to get to orbit with less than 3000dV. That sort of thing is my "meat and potatoes" in KSP. I've done grand tours etc and I can honestly tell you that I would not have without KER, and to a lesser extent MechJeb. After close to 3000 hours in-game I'm still left feeling like crucial information is missing from the stock game. That just feels unfinished as far as I am concerned. Even if I wanted to do that math, it doesn't even succeed in teaching the math to do it yourself. There is no tutorial that walks you through the calculations or what have you. No, new players have to watch videos on YouTube or go to Wikipedia.

I don't post a lot but I feel that I need to add in my two cents as well. I've been playing since 2014 and I will not play KSP without KER at the absolute minimum. I've got four friends that also play KSP. Out of us five, three of us play with KER as a minimum, one gets by without it but rarely goes beyond LKO and the other gave up due to a lack of information. That last player is an engineer and even he thinks it's the height of stupidity that you have to mod in basic information for a game that is supposed to teach rocket science. I'd go so far as to say that I find it insulting that someone would tell me that a game is gonna teach me something, but then make me go trawling through the internet to actually learn what it offered to teach me. That is borderline lying in my book. I don't care if there is an option to turn it on or off. I don't care if people still use KER/MechJeb even after its added because they like the mod better. The point is, there is a critical bit of information display missing from the game. Further, there are more than enough people within the community that want this to be stock as evidenced by the number of times this discussion keeps comes up. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for the feedback that we see from those among us that can "get by without it". My point though is that y'alls ability to get by is not a valid argument against our desire to have this feature. Nor do I believe that the original intent of game being trial and error is a valid argument against KER-like displays either. Just be sure to give it an I/O switch so that both sides are appeased.

Hmm... sounds like a challenge for Danny2462. >:)

Its like a Stock D.E.R.P. from back in RoverDude's early days.

As we say in my family, "I hope the door hits you on the way out."

It seems that the new command pod does not have an IVA.

I am still disappointed that the mission builder does not integrate with career mode. When the expansion was first announced, my first thought was how cool it would be to be able to download new missions from the forum and inject them into my career save. Unfortunately that did not happen. Still looking forward to toying with it though.

YAY! Can't wait to try it out. Oh and FIRST! lol

Aye, might be a bit interesting if it was set up to be some sort of size adapter style part. like a 1.25->1.875 or a 1.875->2.5 kind of thing.

Just thought I'd drop this here as well for you or anyone else interested as it relates to this mod.

If you go with engine models from Interstellar Extended and have even the slightest experience with 3d modeling or want to give it a go, you could just pick an engine that you like and rescale it a few different times. Baring that, pick a single size to work with and call it an "engineering challenge" to use it, lol. Otherwise I got no idea where to find 3d models. Even if you found a suitable one out on the net, you'd still have to adapt it for use in KSP.

Took this mod for a quick test and I have a few bits of feedback for ya. I really like the idea of having an engine that works like the Epstein Drive from The Expanse (though I've actually never seen the show, just remembering Scott Manley's video on the subject). Anyway, on to the feedback. 1) I do feel that the thrust values are way way way out of whack for anyone that plays KSP with G-limits active as I do. My test ship was using the 1.25m Kerman Drive and I had to set the thrust limit to just 2%-3% (at full throttle) to keep my kerbals from passing out. 2) I do not know what you would have to do to make it work but I feel that these engines need to be able to run throttle up during normal timewarp. I think there was mod back in the day that did this for the ion engines but I really couldn't tell you for sure. For the time being I am gonna do some more experimentation using the BetterTimeWarp mod. 3) I also noticed that none of the engines in this mod have gimbal enabled. This seems to cause an issue in that spacecraft running these engines have a very slight wobble to them. This is barely noticed at short distances but can be seen quite clearly when flying to other planets such as Duna. I found it quite hard to maintain a Duna pe while traveling from Kerbin. Even when setting the SAS to hold on target, the orbit line was wobbling back and forth like mad near Duna. I like where this mod is going so far, especially since there isn't anything else available like it to my knowledge. I hope you'll continue to improve it.

Right, so I'm setting up a server for some friends and we all want to run a science mode with custom difficulty. However, even though there is the option to select custom difficulty in the server config, there is no list of options to actually specify the custom settings. Hopefully one of you fine folks has an answer for me, please?

I got burned out due to fundamental game limitations. I've always been irked by the fact that the player is the one having to physically fly stuff. I've used MechJeb and other mods to deal with some of it but at the end of the day I want my kerbals to have to actually do something other than being a passenger/stat boost. I've got well over 1000 hours in the game and I will sometimes still boot it up into sandbox to spend a day or three designing stuff. I just get burned out so quickly though because there is nothing "more" to do. Anyway, I don't want to sidetrack too much so I'll leave it there. I desperately WANT to find something to light that spark for KSP again. I think I'm just done with it though.

Once we see more of the expansion, we'll have a better idea of what we're dealing with. Simple. I will however say that based on what I have seen so far, I'm not really willing to spend more than $5-US on this. I'm willing to spend something to gain new stuff with the stability granted by being "stock". One reason I don't play with many mods is that they tend to destabilize my game. Having the stuff built and directly integrated by the same folks that built the thing is a bonus as far as I am concerned. Plus, new "stock" parts would allow me to get new toys to play with while not violating my own personal ban of mod parts. I have a decent enough system to run several parts mods but I find that downloading the parts you need tends to break the fun of trying to get by with what the game has given us. Anyway, I am about a 4 out of 10 on the excitement meter with regard to this expansion but we'll see what the future holds.

I believe the more appropriate question would be; is it worth visiting? In my case the answer to that is no. However, I am bias as I don't find any of the planets interesting to visit anymore. After the two grand tours I've done I no longer see the point in going anywhere in the Kerbol system since there isn't anything to do when you arrive, save for planning the return trip. Oh how I wish KSP was more of a management/god-game type of game.