KSACheese

Honestly, I get the argument for having a more advanced aero model. And, in some ways, I kind of agree. Introducing a more advanced model from the start probably wouldn't hurt the intuitiveness of the game for new players, as long as they are willing to learn. However, from my personal experience playing with FAR, it kind of annoys me. Not that I can't play with it installed, it just is kind of a hassle to play with sometimes. As moderately experienced player, if I find FAR annoying to deal with, I imagine it might be a bit more to someone who has no idea what they're doing. To me, the FAR-like flight model had so many factors that it was, at times, hard to keep track of. With the stock flight model, it's appropriate to just measure by the simple characteristics of aircraft - center of mass and lift - which makes it much easier for an inexperienced person to deal with. If it were possible to merge the two, meet somewhere in the middle, I'd be much more willing to agree. But my experiences with FAR push me into believing that a more stock-like aero model would be more appropriate for the (hopefully) thousands of new players. Also, I just have more fun with the stock model, but that's just me :))

Oh, man, that is AWESOME! I was wondering if this would be put to use. This is gonna be amazing. And so much for a dead post, huh?

Finally, a use for my 3080!

Hey, blackrack, quick question about EVE: Volumetrics, do you plan to integrate the behavior of the clouds with the weather present below? I.E. will an appropriate rain cloud develop when there is rainy conditions below? Or will it just be random clouds that present with weather? Just curious. Thanks!

I respectfully disagree to this sentiment. KSP, in its base form, has never been about strict realism. Personally, I think that most of the realist side of things has come from the modding community, with mods like RSS/RO, FAR, Principia, Kerbalism, and so on. I mean, look at the Kerbals. If they aren't a physical embodiment of the goofiness that KSP has in all aspects of the game, I don't know what is. I see your point, but I would say that realism, in some aspects, hinders accessibility. I've struggled quite a lot with FAR as an experienced KSP player myself, so being tossed into a realistic aero experience as a new player may be overwhelming. This isn't black and white, and I thought I made that apparent in my original post. To be clear, I think that advanced aero has a place in KSP. There is a huge portion of the community that plays KSP for realism, and I appreciate that aspect of the community. I just don't think it should be something that is present in the base game. As it is a job for the modders now, I think it should be in KSP2.

I really think these concerns can be alleviated with the development of mods. Sure, it will probably take a while for a comprehensive atmospheric simulation mod to be developed, but it will eventually be released, that I am certain. As much as I respect FAR for being a fantastic, challenging mod, one that I have used in the past, I would agree with some here that having a more realistic flight model (while, again, a great challenge) would be counter to the vision of accessibility that the KSP2 team seems to have. Personally, I have been playing with the stock aerodynamics model for a little while now, and while yes, it is simplified, it is more fun for me to play with. I think it is more than acceptable to use a similar aero model in KSP2 as a baseline. Also, the train bit is also quite funny, but brings up a point - a more advanced aerodynamics model would be prohibitive to the core KSP experience in a way, as, at least to me, KSP has always had a base of goofiness and a "lets see if this thing works" attitude. I think with a stock aero model like FAR, this wouldn't be (as) possible. I do respect that people would want a more advanced aero model, since people have their preferences and their styles of play. I just think that starting at an accessible level and being able to mod it to a more advanced one would be a better way to go about it. I don't think its really anything to be really concerned about, though. Advanced aero will come, one way or another.

Been following these updates for a while now, and you have never failed to blow me away. Absolutely phenomenal work, blackrack! Can't wait for this update.

Planning things that I do in the games I play is something I have done with such frequency that I’ve managed to burn myself out on it. So, my plan? Make no plan and do whatever comes to me

From a purely aesthetic point of view, I agree that the star-effect is a little off putting. Though, I know this is an older thread, so perhaps this has been modified or edited in some way. Either way, I do hope they at least tone down how much it sticks out. Plus, I'm sure there'll be mods to change the plume if people don't like it.

It's funny, I hadn't considered this when I was first forming my thoughts about the announcement. I joined the game around the 0.19/0.20 update time frame, and I absolutely adored it, even without all of the added content we will be getting. Despite my initial disappointment of missing all the other content that won't be available on launch, this way of thinking kind of reassures me. I'm now more excited than I was yesterday!

So, seeing the trailer, I have some mixed feelings. I will chronicle them by excitement level, starting from the top: We finally have a release date. And, seeing as it's going into Early Access, instead of full launch, it's likely that is the final date (knock on wood, though). That's something to be excited for, as someone who has waited since the announcement. Also, the game is looking really good, in my opinion. I think that the visuals are phenomenal, including all of the atmospheric effects, terrain detail, and material shading for parts. Definitely a step up from KSP 1 (without mods, of course). The base gameplay seems to be solid, and I'm looking forward to a (hopefully) more performant, smoother experience in KSP 2. However, this is where my excitement wanes. For instance, I'm not sure if it was because the game was running in a smaller window size during the gameplay captures or not, but the UI seems pretty cluttered. I'd post an image, but I can't seem to figure it out right now, but if you go to 9:53 in the video and pause, the UI takes up a pretty massive amount of space. Again, not sure it's something having to do with aspect ratio or not. Either way, I hope there is some scalability for the UI, and that this isn't finalized. I will say, I do like the style of the UI for the most part, so kudos. My biggest issue, though, lies with the intense change in direction that has left me somewhat whiplashed. I'll start by saying I have nothing but respect for the KSP2 devs, and it's clear that they have put a huge amount of effort in to making this game, and it looks like it's paying off. However, I can't help but be disappointed with all of the promised content now being pushed back for future updates. Now, before anyone says anything, I recognize that a delayed game/feature is a more complete game/feature, and I believe it. I'm sure it was a difficult decision to make for the devs, and I respect and understand the decision to further develop these new ideas. I can't say I'm really happy about it, though. For instance, the last KSP 2 Episode released was about interstellar travel, and now it will not be in the game until the planned third update. The science system won't even be in the game until the first update. All in all, the change to early access is, to me, a bit disappointing. The part that really stung the most, though, was the heavily delayed multiplayer aspect. I want to reiterate that it's a good decision to delay it for polishing. However, one of the things I looked forward to most was playing KSP 2 with a friend when it came out. No longer. This left me very disappointed. However, I won't end this post on a sour note. I still can't wait for the game to come out. There are a plethora of improvements from KSP 1 that can be easily seen, and I'm truly looking forward to buying it on day one, as much as some of this new information has surprised me. All of what they have been talking about is still coming, though not when I had expected. I hope they are true to their word when they say how important community feedback will be, because if they are, this will surely be an amazing game.

Loving these recent updates, blackrack. Keep up the fantastic work! I'm planning a whole save with a more dramatic focus on atmospheric flight in anticipation for this mod. Extremely excited for release!

Man, these are looking absolutely awesome! I can't wait for this to be released - I plan to start a brand new playthrough with this as a big part of it. Don't take this as adding any pressure, though. I believe that your mental and physical health far outweighs anything you do for us, and as grateful as we all are for what you do for the KSP community, your health always matters more! Thanks for sharing this update, though, really looking forward to this!

Absolutely breathtaking. The distant clouds in the first picture, in particular, are incredible. I understand that this is still in progress, but every screenshot gets me more and more excited for release. Keep up this fantastic work!

This looks really amazing. I originally found out you were working on all of this on the KSP subreddit, and have been following here ever since. Not disappointed whatsoever. One question I have, though, is regarding the bottoms of the cloud formations. Right now, the flat bottom of the clouds looks sort of uniform and flat. I know that clouds having a flat bottom is pretty true to life in a lot of cases, but, to me, it can seem just a bit two-dimensional. Are you planning to add a level of variation to the bottoms of these clouds, as to add a little more depth? Also, I am completely unfamiliar to Unity (and, honestly, most coding/programming/practical game design in general), so if there are limitations in that regard that I am unaware of, that is really my bad! Again, seeing these screenshots on a regular basis gets me so excited for whenever this gets released. I look forward to seeing more about it! Thanks again.

By this, I just mean “support the effort they put into it”. For instance, I probably wont need the tutorials (except maybe for the newest content) but I still want to support the effort they put into making them. Hope that helps.

I only mean to say that I refuse to preorder any game, at least within the near future. The examples you point out, as well as others that you have not, are all precisely why I decide not to preorder. There are successful launches of games, absolutely, but when it comes to preordering, I choose to not take that risk. Also, I'm not exactly sure where you get the idea that my comments are in any way "pressuring" the dev team, nor was I saying that DLC should be any sort of priority at launch. I also tend to agree, not vocally as I don't post here all that often, that delaying a game when it needs more work is a preferable alternative to a bad game. Furthermore, I also never said I was "wishing" for any of this. The poll itself clearly asks "What are you OK spending money on after buying the KSP2 base game?" which is not equivalent to a "wish-list". In fact, I would rather not have to buy more content when I have already paid for a full game release. However, if DLC was implemented, and had some of the features I noted in my comment, I might be willing to purchase it within reason.

I'm fine with buying major DLC. For example, I loved the parts and mechanics that Making History and Breaking Ground introduced into KSP. New solar systems, new mechanics, and new parts all would be worth buying IF they are a reasonable price, and are released as major packs. No Sims 4 type DLC bull. However, when it comes to microtransactions, I will refuse to partake. As far as we know, Nate Simpson has emphatically said that KSP 2 will not have microtransactions, but only time will tell. I am cautiously optimistic about KSP 2, as I have been burned by many games I was hyped for before. Never again. I truly hope that KSP 2 lives up to the expectations of myself and the community, but as I said before, only time will tell.

Personally, I have learned my lesson in terms of preordering games, and although KSP 2 is seemingly going to be an excellent game, appearances can be deceiving. However, as an avid KSP lover, just as many of you, I may not be able of helping myself from buying it on the first day. I suppose that the end result is somewhat the same, but being sure that a refund will go through is an attractive aspect. I will strive to wait for the response and reviews from players and the community, but honestly, no promises.

The reason I do not play with props (aside from the fact that I suck at using them :P) is because they don’t have any noise. I don’t really understand why it was never implemented, honestly. I hope that, if props are implemented again, that they have some sound effects, like you said. (Also, for dummies like me, I hope they are at least a little more intuitive to use. I like prop aircraft too!)

Personally, I disagree with fuel tanks and solid rocket boosters. I think that the game would lose a lot of it's lego-ness that I love so dearly. To be fair, it could definitely be useful in reducing part count and making rockets a bit more custom, but again, I think the "slap-it-all-together" nature is somewhat diminished when using procedural tanks and boosters. Also, a big challenge in KSP1, and likely again in KSP2, is being able to build what you can with the parts on-hand, and that is also messed up a bit when procedurals are introduced. If, however, they have limited presets (similar to those structural tube pieces in KSP1), or can be limited by what tech level you are at, I could get on board with it. As far as SRBs go, however, I think and interesting solution would be to instead add solid fuel sections that can customize the burn time or thrust to a certain degree. If I am not mistaken, some SRBs in real life are segmented, but I may be wrong about this. I completely agree with the structural parts, however. Sometimes a truss is either just a bit too short or a bit too long and can be quite frustrating. Completely agree.

You can debate whether or not you believe that it is a good direction for the game, but you did pick the one sentence out of the entire post where he was just stating how he feels on the matter. You could have quoted any other part of the post and stated why you believe that it is not something the game should have, but you didn't.

First forum topic in a while, so I hope you will bear with me. I was perusing this sub-forum, and saw a topic that inspired me to create this poll. So, I am curious: how will you be approaching the new tutorial animations planned for KSP2? Personally, I am not a new player of KSP by any means, but I will likely be watching the animations for late game content, as well as to support the efforts that the devs put into them. I want to know how you guys feel! Also, mods, feel free to do what you need to this topic. Again, I am not exactly used to posting topics on the forums, so I apologize in advance for any errors I have made.

I feel you. Doing a permadeath, no reverts career mode run myself, except I also have unmanned-before-manned, no extra ground-stations, and various other difficulty tweaks. I'll tell you, I had to restart probably 10-15 times before I got to a place where a single mistake doesn't wipe out all of my progress. Even with all of my restarts, I have killed Jeb and Bob already after their capsule rolled down a mountain and exploded after a long Mun mission. So, again, I really feel ya there.

If you guys haven't seen yet, two new videos were uploaded on the KerbalSpaceProgram YouTube channel, one being a studio update, and the second being a (dope as hell, in my opinion) video about near-future tech that will be available in KSP2! Check it out: Next-Gen Tech Studio Update Let me know what you guys think!