DStaal

There's such a thing as non-sacrificial Kerbals?

It's a bit of a complicated install on macOS, and when I started playing didn't work at all under the OS version I was running. I also tend to run a fairly bleeding-edge group of mods, and have seen enough issues from CKAN pop up to be wary of it - and installing mods isn't actually all that troublesome.

@IgorZ - If I were to put together a PR to add these parts to KIS, would you be interested? There's three parts that would be interesting: A large locker, a small locker, and a cardboard box. The image above is the large locker - the small locker would be similar, and the cardboard box is basically a KIS Container without a mount point and with a small stored volume. (So you can pack containers into storage, and then pull them out and use them to carry things around.)

Something might be possible. CobaltWolf seems open to letting it happen:

That's from SEP: The pack is discontinued and the experiments no longer work - but the locker boxes work fine.

A more likely scenario would be that they make a fundamental change in the way their DRM works, and then ~5-6 years later turn off the old DRM. Every game from before that which didn't get an update would no longer work - but newer games would still work fine. (Just cautionary tales from someone who's been bitten more than once by DRM support being dropped.)

Main problem with DRM in my opinion (as someone who has KSP1 and both DLCs without any DRM - including anything Steam adds in) is that ultimately you've rented the game from whomever is running the DRM server. As long as they're making enough money to run the DRM server, you're fine - but if they go out of business or decide it's not worth them running the server, your game stops working. A recent one in my experience is I went back to play EV:Nova - but AmbrosiaSW is out of business, so I can't play the game. I have the license code, the game files, etc. But it can't verify the code against the server, so the game won't play beyond the demo. Now Steam is big enough that it's not likely to shut it's doors anytime soon - but it's possible it could happen.

But not everyone has to play on the *same* server. See TF2 or similar: Players can set up their own servers with their own variations on the base rules, what mods are allowed, etc. You can choose to play in a public server with strangers, or in a private server with friends.

Newton's 3rd law is inconvenient from a coding perspective. (I suspect it likely doesn't exist within a single vessel during a single physics frame - though it'll effectively exist over multiple physics frames.) Struts are likely special-cased in somehow, as not part of the tree. (Note of course all of this is supposition based on some coding experience and a compsci degree - no actual experience in the game engine.)

Just a comment from a coding design standpoint: I can see why a tree design is being used. First off, it's easy to 'walk' - that is, it's easy to start at one point, and make sure you work on every part exactly once per cycle/frame. It's not impossible to design an algorithm to walk a more cluster of parts, but it *is* harder. Secondly, it means a part's forces will never affect itself. This is likely a major one, as it prevents a whole host of worst-case scenarios in coding. But by having a strict tree design, if a part is pushing on one of it's connecting parts, that force is never going to come around and push it through a different part. (Which would adjust how it's pushing on the original part...) Neither of these are insurmountable problems - but I can see why for Unity they're likely a 'good enough' compromise. The number of shapes you can do with a well-designed tree is fairly large, after all, and between those two you can simplify and accelerate your physics quite a bit. Star Theory would have to design their own physics system to get beyond that - which they could do, if they wanted to, but it would be a significant effort.

You can also do something like XCom2's semi-procedural generation: generation using large assets that have to fit together in specific ways. If the scale is large, this could be individually crafted planets/solar systems in a procedural universe, or it could be 'continents' on a planet.

I've found it's typically in the *last* command pod/science container on the ship. Check everything that could hold science, it'll be there someplace.

I'll agree it's not perfect and has some issues - but what would you move towards? That is: What would you replace it with? No game engine is really designed for what KSP is doing, and I don't think KSP is a big enough game to justify the investment to building their own engine. (And note that we have a nice long thread on this in this forum...)

I could paint my car neon green. It doesn't mean it's going to happen, or that it's a good idea. Why is it a good idea - for Star Theory - for them to develop this DLC, vs. any other project they could work on? Why should they listen to a random player on the Internet? You say you're trying to convince them - but I've seen no evidence of you trying to convince anyone of anything, other than it is going to happen. You stating it doesn't make it happen. Why should it happen? How many thousand people have you gotten to agree to buy this hypothetical DLC? How much market analysis have you done? How many other people do you have writing in? Blender and Unity will only take a few dozen hours of your time to learn. Convincing Star Theory to do a DLC based on a movie that lost money is going to take hundreds or more hours of your time in campaigning and fundraising - and I haven't seen you start that.

A: Why would they have to? B: Squad isn't involved in KSP2. The people you need to convince are Star Theory and Take Two. Can you tell us how you are doing that? It's likely Blender and Unity are easier to learn than it is to convince Star Theory to work on this.

Or even asking for help from current moders. I'd argue that some of the names listed in this thread produce *better* parts than Squad...

If they wanted to do a day-one DLC that had a full RSS makeover, I think that would work. Other than something like that, I'd say any DLC should wait for a bit after the main game. (I do think eventual DLC is likely a good idea.)

Could we change that tense here? You keep speaking as if it is already happening, and is planned out - when so far it's only in your head. That line should be: 'Star Theory's could get very far in developing that DLC.' You can't command Star Theory - you can only plead with them to make a choice you want.

I want to step back a moment - my view on this thread is part of the issue/debate is the tone: You want Lost in Space parts in KSP2. Ok, fine. There are two things you as a consumer can do: You can campaign for Star Theory to add it, getting support to show it would be worth the time and money expended. Or you can work on it yourself as a mod. Neither of those is being put forward in this thread - what's being put forward in this thread is that Star Theory must do it, with no real effort to convince anyone that it would be worthwhile. Yes, if licensing was worked out everyone could make money off of it - but how much? Would it be worth the time and effort spent to create it? So far we have one vocal user saying it would be good - they're unlikely to spend several thousand dollars for the DLC, so if they are the entire market than it's not worth the effort. Convince someone, and don't speak as if it's an obviously done deal - it's not, and there are plenty of movies and TV shows with cool spaceships that were more successful that would be more likely to be considered. If you want this one - campaign for it.

I believe a couple of modders have gone through and tested with models, and shown that a Kerbal can fit through a Jr port - as long as they aren't wearing a helmet. So they should be able to *transverse* them, but not *board* through them.

I have only really watched a game from 'pre-announce' to release a few times - but even 9-10 months seems fairly normal from my limited experience. 12-24 wouldn't even be out of line.

Which means it could in theory be possible. I ask again: What makes you think this would be *likely*?

Why do you believe that? What makes it likely?

They announced a delay to their investors - but it could just be a delay of a few days. Either way, that would be the end of the first quarter - so sometime in there I would expect some statement.

We know they are changing stuff. How much and what they are changing, we don't know - but on issues like this it'd be best to at least take a wait-and-see approach. As for when there's likely to be new info - I'd say April-June. Sometime in there is the original release date, so either they'll have to announce a delay, or announce the actual date.