dave1904

I play career only because it adds a bit more challenge but I get what you mean. Once you have the mun capable tech after 30 minutes you can go everywhere. Its the same in real life however. SaturnV could basically go anywhere in the solar system but the life support couldn't. Life support adds to much to ignore. Its the only limitation in space travel. If human beings could survive without food and could take as much radiation as possible we would already be on our way to alpha centauri because we have infinite time. I wonder how they will handle interstellar travel. If life support is not added what is stopping us from just timewarping with primitive mun rockets to other stars? It might take a few hours of real time time warping but people have done crazier with ion drive burns in game already.

I get what you mean and I love scan sat myself but the devs do make a good point when it comes to science and the "casual" vanilla gameplay. That's time acceleration. Whats the point in having timed experiments if you can just skip time? IMO time should be treated as a resource in KSP because it is arguably one of the most important ones in real life space travel. (Not the technical challenge but our biological one )I never liked how time was irrelevant. Life support should also be added. Maybe I am wrong about this but sometimes talking to other gamers I get the feeling most casuals do not even get to the mun or even kerbal orbit so adding deeper more difficult things like life support and possibly even kerbal life spans would not really make much difference when it comes to accessibility. For all I care the life spans could be 100 years but time pressure needs to be added. Maybe a hardcore career mode would solve that problem. I want to be forced to launch multiple missions at the same time.

I've plan to play it again sometime but I figure the longer I wait the better it gets. Have not played since before planet landing patch.

Why? Visually it would be great and orbital mechanics are still the same. I would love it. A system like eve that is hardcore.

I don't know how promotion works and often do wonder why games get a trailer followed by months of silence. It's very common. Rockstar has used the same tactic for years now and it seems to work. Teaser followed by 6 months of silence, then push the release back 6 months and finally release 1.5 years after the first trailer. Would love to know why.

would be cool. I actually played portal 2 on pc coop with a friend on his ps3. Worked fantastic and it was so nice to be able to have the pc fps and play with friends. The funniest part is that the connection was one of the best in an online game ever. I never expected that from the first PS3-PC cross platform game ever I believe.

Oh I really wish I had your confidence. To many games let me down over the years

Is that really true though? I often wonder if its really so called engine limitations or developer laziness. If ea chooses to make everything on frostbite they will make a lot of money in the long run. Mass effect andromadas issue had nothing to do with frostbite if you ask me. It was a development problem and people just decided to blame it on the engine. Forgive my ignorance because I have no problem with unity but what part of KSP would unreal not be able to do as well? Its clear that if you are developing a racing game that you would choose a proven engine but I just think it's more the simplicity and licensing that makes unity so popular. Not a bad thing. Better simple than complicated. I want ksp to stay on unity because porting mods will probably be quite easy. Well part mods at least . I no nothing about scripting (proper modding) unfortunately.

rumor has it KSP3 will be developed by rockstar north on the rage engine.

ok then

sometimes I wonder why you all waste your energy with topics like this. I know its not right for threads to be simply deleted but a thread that has no constructive criticism about why Unity is bad for KSP should be just deleted or ignored. I don't know if its the right engine or not. I just read the posts from modders here on the forums and if they think unity is fine I choose to believe someone that knows what they are talking about over someone with no idea. I can tell you have no idea because someone with knowledge about the subject will tell me why something is a bad or not.

Sorry but I am just so afraid of being hyped for something. I have been hoping for years now that a more stable and moddable KSP comes and was always very disappointed when people said it would never happen. KSP1 has its limitations, 1 of them is axial tilt and I have heard its in stock KSP2. If not stock then moddable atleast. I am just so afraid it will end up being a disaster because there are so many these days. I know its only a game but KSP is more than a game to me. Thanks for you're reply and it gives me some confidence. After all 2 of the games I was the most hyped for were Rome2 and Arkham Knight. I do not know how much you game but I am sure if you are a software engineer you heard about them on release.... Edit and to clarify I meant trust them in general. You covered the 2 major things anyway. Modding and Stability. I do not care that much about balance since KSP is a platform and everyone has their own version of the perfect game. Mods will handle that.

You've meet them right? Can we trust them in your oppinion? So many broken games on release.

You should be glad. We test the game and you get a more polished version. Look at gtav and rdr2. Pc players have to wait 1 year but the end product is simply better. Updates for your pcs are easier to release because of PlayStation network. Besides that the 2 versions will have different changes in the updates besides game balance. Nothing will change. Console ksp is a second class game too. Its good that as many people get access to this great game as possible but it's simply not a console game.

I have to agree with this post to be honest. If ksp is what we all hope it is in terms of modability and stability I really don't see a point in playing the original. Maybe a few people cannot pick it up at launch but the vast majority of players will not return to the original if ksp2 is good. All the posts seem to be assuming ksp2 is a good game. We don't know yet. I think squad will update and release dlc only if there is a player base that makes it worthwhile.

Let's say they continued to update ksp for years to come. At some point it won't be the original game either. Even now it is very different to ksp 1.00. In a sense it's better to let the original be as it is and have a new one. Not that it matters since you can probably find the files of every version that exist online. As long as you have 2 healthy hands it doesn't matter.

Aside from it being more modifiable and optimized. Axial Tilt.

get rich and buy a new pc like the rest of the west bra. well to be fair the fire part is obvious enough for me at least.

is it not possible to like posts anymore btw?

Ive heard that about 1 thread per ship but have not seen any practical performance differences with it. I'm not sure if that is true or not.

Anything more than 4 cores hyperthreaded is overkill. Why Intel has already decided to go 6 cores for the gaming cpus is beyond me. Do not expect better multithreading for ksp2. I'm 100% sure physics will be singlethreaded. If not I hope someone from the future can reply and tell me how wrong I hopefully am.

I doubt they will. Some people might want to upgrade to something more than a 2.3 duo core instead of complaining. A bad cpu is a bad cpu. Doesn't mean it cannot be optimized but some people expect games to run goood on really bad hardware.

Well not matter how optimized it will be I'm doing a cpu upgrade for its release IF the game is good. My 4770k is still more than enough most likely but better single core performance will be nice. I've not looked into current releases or upcoming releases yet but I want something with 4ghz with a 5ghz boost. That's probably about 50-70% more single core performance. I often considered doing an upgrade for ksp1 but wasn't confident in the performance gain.

I read an article about the total war series lack of multi threading support when it comes to processing battle AI. One of the main arguments aside from the warscape engine being outdated is that you can loose overall performance when multithreding because you need to share memory between cores. I've always wondered if this could also be the case in KSP. Physics performance could be worse if shared between cores than on a single core. I am no programmer and from what I know multithreding is even a very difficult subject for people that work on games but is there any truth in what I read and could that be true for KSP? I highly doubt ksp2 will have physics calculated over multiple cores but I think that the single core performance is nowhere near as optimized as it could be.

The things you mentioned are self made challenges and are already trivial in the current game. Ksp lets you play the way you want to play and thats the most important part.