JoeSchmuckatelli

I've been sitting here thinking about the responses to my recent question... and suddenly got hit with this uncomfortable realization of just how freaking massive Sag A must be. (It's one thing to know something intellectually, but another to feel it). The numbers are so big they almost don't make sense. Like trying to parse out what Kraftfahrzeughaftpflichtversicherung means when you know the root words - but are barely fluent in the language itself.

Hopefully the min spec was determined long ago. If they're doing that stuff (other than optimization work) now... no game this year

(I'm being persnickety, but on purpose. "New Hope" came much later.) A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... <Title> Star Wars It is a period of civil war.

Subtitled - in subsequent remasters

FTFY May, 1977. Avco Theater in LA. I was there. I know what I saw.

Sensors? When we are going, you don't need sensors

Yeah - they should be WAY past the point of 'skimming the forums for good ideas.'. Frankly, if they're going to hit the 'sometime in 2022' thing they need to be wrapping up problems rather than potentially creating new ones!

The contracts are already signed. And they cost... Plus.

Yeah - I don't know whether it is or not; never noticed it ingame. What I did not like was that the game would auto-update my saved ships (if I loaded a saved ship and made any changes... it got saved to it. Meaning I had to REMEMBER to rename my base craft "Mun Lifter" to "Mun Lifter with Payload" EVERY TIME before making changes. (Wanna guess how often I remembered? Hint: it's a non-zero number... but in that range).

See - you're hitting on something thats niggling the back of my brain. Given that we generally assume at a given radii that all things will have the same orbital speed, and that those are usually done looking at just planets or just satellites of planets... (mostly because the satellite is so, so very much less than the sun / planet in question) Is there any reason to think that the sun's gravity might combine with that of Sag A to give it a smidge more speed, and the planets over time start to lag a bit, having to be pulled back into the sun's orbit by the sun itself... making Sag A's influence not entirely constant over the entire system? *and yeah, I know that the sun is so, so, so, very much less than Sag A... but given how much bigger it is than any other planet - could there be an effect? Edit - or am I once again revealing my fundamental misunderstanding of how gravity works?

You just reminded me of a feature - which I already had a workaround for: the ability to put 'notes' on ships/stations. I'd get to a point where I'd start renaming ships 'Dock with Jeb's Pod' and 'Fuel truck for Minmus Outpost' and 'Minmus Outpost landing ship with probe and rover' Be nice to have a small 'text' notes area.

Can't argue with that Actually - I can. This is a forum and I'm anxiously awaiting the release, so splitting hairs is a way to pass the time. That said... I won't argue with that!

Back to my 'regularly scheduled theme' of quirky gravity questions: Preamble: I know that 3-body problems are complex... but do we have a guess as to what effect the sun's motion around Sag A has on the orbits of the planets? (I'm guessing that Sag A gravity affects the whole system, not just the sun, but given the sun's massive gravity compared to its satellites... is it correct to assume that orbits are solely determined by the sun?)

Data secure: 1-0-0 1-0-0 1 SOS!

That mimics the current system - which, again, has always seemed odd to me. Like a 'gamification' or anachronism to the original game. The 'feel' I think most people have is that planes came before rockets - so if you are playing a rocket game that has planes in it... not having planes at the start (and having to unlock planes only after flying rockets) is weird. I 'get' why Squad did that: the focus was on rockets... but this is KSP2, and if we're looking to broaden the audience, we don't have to make the same choices they did. I'd like to see basic plane parts (just barely enough to build a jet to explore the local area) available alongside the basic rocket stuff. And then parallel trees. Certainly have 'research' into advanced composites affect the availability of parts for both trees, but given that this is a spaceflight game, certainly the rocket tree has a lot more branches. Where the rocket tree might go 1-->23--->56--->78910---->12,13,14,15,16, etc. the plane tree might only go 1--------->4------------>11----------->21 with it offering wings and aerodynamic surfaces and atmosphere breathing engines. Yeah, once you unlock a 'science' thing on the rocket tree you can certainly attach it to your plane - just like you can use basic plane parts on your rockets if you want to. That 'sandbox' crazy contraption feel is important to keep, IMO. Did not think about this while writing the above: but rover (and boat???) parts should be sooner. We have had the wheel for a long time now! Personally, I'd like to see those 'progression' steps be related to one another, as well. Not just throwing a weird 'rover wheel' into something on the 'Advanced Rocketry' Branch - but have it be its own branch; where once you start unlocking rover parts the subsequent branches relate to rover parts. Just makes sense. Certainly for balance - they can make unlocking 'advanced rover wheels' come much later in the progression - like I describe for the plane progression (even if this equates to skipping 'levels''; you get a basic wheel early, then have to wait for mid-game to get better wheeled options, then maybe once 'bases' start becoming available, even better wheels... mimicing the development of and availability of technologies 'feel' tied to progression and need. (Certainly we did not have steel wire and aluminum tread wheels being manufactured until someone dreamed up a need for a Lunar Rover).

Now work on Hulk. Make me believe the physics! Remember - he can smash and throw a 65 ton main battle tank... Im guessing that 'mild mannered Bruce Banner' is pretty dense

Do consumers really care about these events? These all seem to have become insider/industry events disassociated from the lives of the average game purchaser. I get timing releases to Thanksgiving /Christmas because everyone (In America / the West) is much spendier, but I cannot remember a time that I saw something revealed at PAX or CES that influenced me towards wanting a product.

A small, weak SOI at the designated L1&2 points, outside the secondary body's SOI for game purposes - where the engine basically determines the location by a linear distance from the secondary to keep the alignments correct. Also except as needed they declare that only the Kerbin Lagrange points are in the game (so don't go expecting K-Mun points, etc) or other designated points (Jool, Risk) unless they wanted to add Trojans to visit... or something

The part implementation through the tree always seemed awkward. It does not make sense to have access to rockets but not planes when you start. So if there is a tech tree - rockets and planes should be parallel progressions, not parts of the same tree. I'm okay with being forced to wait for certain later parts of the plane tree to open (pending acquisition of tech on the rocket tree). Having the ability to build and fly a simple plane from the beginning also makes sense from an onboarding perspective: learning controls and the UI, etc in a virtual thing that most people have experienced

I'm going on 20 years since I lived around real mountains. Photos are making me jealous! Best I've gotten is some scrambling in the Appalachians and parts of Arizona. (Once I had kids...)

This has a certain appeal. My KSP experience is best described as haphazard. (Almost wrote 'half-ahem- hazard' ... yeah, that will work). I have a ton of fun building and exploring until I get to both moons and have stations... and then I'm running too many missions to keep track of what is supposed to be doing what where, and then either overbuild or underbuild a mission to another planet and then stuff gets kind of hard (b/c I don't get the physics and can't math my way to success)... and then I kind of peter out for a while. Hoping their development scheme (that is 'player-development' track and the tutorials and work that @Just Jim are putting out) will help a neanderthal like me get into the later stages of planetary exploration!

I'm ready to see these NEW mistakes WenDrop?

Kind of don't need them in KSP/KSP2. Given the way the orbitals work in SOI... its almost certain the L4/L5 and L3 points are well out of the given body's SOI, so you could just do a stellar orbit in any one of those points without risk of perturbation. L1 & L2 could also be simulated merely by plopping something just outside the planetary SOI (except that due to differing orbital circumferences, you will get drift). So 3/5 aint bad.

Worth it!