KSACheese

I was referring to the new LG and XL radial decouplers :)) edit: just realized that the LG one is likely not new, but the XL definitely is

Posted this in the discord, but I think that it's worth adding in here. We have new 3.75 (LG) and 5 (XL) meter docking ports and radial decouplers. woot

After more than three years of waiting, I am happy to say I'll be buying KSP 2 on day one. I have been burned before by games (looking at you, Ghost Recon Breakpoint) but I have so much confidence in the devs and their passion that I can't help but be immensely excited for the 24th.

I'm definitely thinking the classic white and black for most rockets (I'm basic, I know), while the payloads will be mostly metallic because shiny :))))) However, I will definitely experiment with all black rocket planes, my inspiration being the X-15. I played around with that paint style in KSP1 using TU, and fell in love with it. That, and maybe mess around with green and gray for my high-speed interceptors.

Thought you just had a lot more fingers than I do until I realized toes are also a thing.

As far as I know, the roadmap updates will not be paid DLC. They were planned content for release, but were instead delayed for player feedback and to have more complete future content.

To clarify: are you referring to a technical definition of "volumetric"? I was referring to the more general "volumetric", i.e. having volume. I have absolutely no technical background, so I defaulted to my more general understanding of the word volumetric.

I'm confused how you got to the conclusion that the clouds that we see in the other screenshots aren't volumetric. Looking closely, they have very similar 3D "textures" (for lack of better words). Also, the show and tell, as well as the previous Dev Episode are from a completely different perspective than the screenshots we've been getting more recently. Surprise, surprise, the bottom part of the cloud won't be visible from 40,000 feet. There is no indication from what we have available that the clouds aren't volumetric.

I have the same thought process with career mode - contracts like "build a space station", "build a surface base", or "put a satellite here" push me to play the game in a way that I wouldn't be incentivized to in science mode.

I'm buying day one, but I have been saving all of my KSP playing for next month, not to mention I have sent Kerbals to very few places in the system, so I will be sinking quite a bit of time into it, I hope.

The way I see it, feedback is less about the individual reports from players and more of the consensus of the individuals. We already see that now, with posts such as "add weapons to KSP", mentioned previously, garnering a generally negative response from the community.

I mean, we still use props in modern aviation and even spaceflight. See Ingenuity.

Hello again, everyone, New screenshot from the Intercept Discord… Personally, I’m very impressed with how the shadowing looks in this one!

For anyone not in the Intercept discord... These look pretty sweet :))

I don't see the problem with doing a marketing run on KSP 2 EA, really, as long as they market it as that. Really, I feel like a marketing campaign for the two "releases" would be appropriate, and would generate more attention at the same time. If they market the early access release by saying it's early access, and then market the full release as a full release, I don't see any problem. Why only market one or the other? Heck, Rockstar has limited marketing for every single GTA Online update. Why can't this be the same for the two largest milestones in KSP 2, early access launch and 1.0 release?

Blackrack, are you more focused on having a baseline baseline config, similar to the current version of EVE, and leaving the more complex configs up to the other modmakers out there (see AVP, Spectra, etc.), or do you want to make your own complex config to meet the standards set by mods like AVP or Spectra? I can already see that you're approaching aspects that weren't in the old default EVE config, like the sandstorms on Duna and rain on Kerbin, so I was wondering if you plan on continuing that further at all. Just curious

yea but it cool lookin :))))

Question for blackrack: will the clouds in the upcoming update only be available for celestial bodies with an atmosphere, or all bodies like it is now? I ask this because mist/dust is a feature I've always loved on the Mun and Minmus from other EVE packs, and was curious if this would still be possible. Thanks :))

From what I've seen, it's an early access build through Patreon, but I can't confirm for certain.

Woo! I figured there was something going on with some Steam games. Really appreciate the confirmation!

I honestly don't know if I'm more excited for KSP2 or this... this looks awesome! Great work!

This is also exactly what I'd like. Having a balance of realism and just outright goofiness is definitely what I'm looking for.

Orbital mechanics and aerodynamics are already part of a successful gameplay loop in KSP1. As I have discussed at length, I believe that an advanced aerodynamics model will be harmful to the success of KSP2's gameplay loop and overall success among new players. Really, we're not arguing for the "simplification" of anything, rather to keep the physics in the game simple enough to be enjoyable, while still satisfying.

The KSP2 team is already trying to make tutorials simple and as baseline as possible. A tutorial that needs to explain a multitude of complex aerodynamic characteristics would be quite counter to that, I think. The only way to have simple, accessible tutorials, you need a simple, accessible game. Plus, I think it's fair to say one major goal of the KSP2 team is to open the KSP community to a new audience and getting them interested and excited. As much as I understand why some like playing in advanced, it shouldn't be the default. If you make the skill curve too steep, you can drive a portion of your audience away. It is something that should scare KSP2, since that goes against what they are really trying to do. Not to mention, from a wholly economic point of view, making a game frustrating to play or too boring to learn would definitely not inspire increased sales.

It's not about shying away from teaching them, it's inviting them. Motivation is a huge factor in someone's willingness to learn. If they find they like flying planes, they can find a way to fly them more realistically. But a player shouldn't be frustrated to a point where they have no interest in learning further, and I believe some percentage of the newcomers would by an aero model that's not appropriately designed to introduce them to the concepts. You don't go from elementary to college right away, and why should that be the case with them?