DStaal

They haven't specifically said anything on the issue I believe, and they are overhauling the UI quite a bit - so it wouldn't surprise me if they've overhauled some of the controls... But I don't see anything which makes me believe there are any *major* changes on that front likely to come up. If anything there's likely to be some quality-of-life improvements and polish, but I wouldn't expect a rework.

Do you have a source for this? It would be interesting if true, but it contradicts basically everything I've ever seen on it - in which SI is basically a slightly refined version (and renaming) of the metric system, based on the kilogram, the meter, etc.

Best to ask these types of questions directly in the mod's own thread - that'll be the place where the most knowledgeable people will see it.

I'll admit that angled movements will take some more work to deal with. (As always.) For the latitude... Until you get to extreme latitudes, it's true to within the margin of error when doing navigation by hand, I think. (And if you aren't doing navigation by hand, you don't care what units the computer is working in - you care about the output. So it's mostly used for back-up navigation at this point.)

And a more blatant one - they've even copied the graphics from the official SpaceDock release: https://spacedock.info/mod/2260/Kerbal Inventory System (KIS)

Knots get used because for large-scale navigation they make life easy: 60 knots per hour means one degree per hour on the map. For ships and planes where you're working with continental-scale maps and no landmarks, it makes sense. Yes and no - what you'd have to remember is that the two scales are measuring different things, and should be used differently. Meters per second measures changes in distance, knots measures changes in position. And I'd want to be able to land in Meters per second - it's the appropriate measurement for that. (You could actually argue that if you're landing vertically, you're moving at 0 knots, as it's defined as a section of a great circle...)

I wouldn't mind knots - but I really think they should be done correctly: as 1/60th of a degree of latitude per hour. Which means it changes depending on which planet you're on...

Because it's far easier to use the mod than to spend several minutes every time you build a ship? Because action groups are limited and you may want them for something else? Because sometimes you forget?

And we have another today, possibly the same author? (Both Russian, I can tell that.) https://spacedock.info/mod/2258/Graphics assembly

I won't discount the utility of it in the base game - but just want to check to make sure you're aware that MechJeb can do this in KSP1.

I don't think it's been mentioned yet. But switching to SI units would make sense - hopefully the same 1L as CRP, which could then be ported over.

Given the design of the ship (not areodynamic at all) I seriously doubt it would be surface pressure optimized. Something with a different TWR/ISP ratio would make sense - if they are indeed separate engines. Either way, we're likely getting a bit off-topic here. We do have a thread for speculation about the engines:

For a mod that has parts with that module, check out USI's Konstruction:

Not sure what the proper procedure here is, but the new 'mod' 'Graphic Mods for KSP 1.8' is just a bundling of other mods: https://spacedock.info/mod/2257/Graphic mods for KSP 1.8 Included are EVE, Scatterer, RealPlume, among others.

Any KSP part will generally consist of three files: a .cfg file, a model, and a texture. The .cfg file describes the part, including what model to use and the texture (The texture can be optional - it can be embedded/referenced in the model itself.) All these paths are relative to the 'GameData' folder for KSP. (But may or may not be in the same folder as each other.) So for a KSP part to load, it's model, texture, and .cfg file have to be in the expected location relative to GameData. As an example, here's a line out of the MK1-3 part config file from Squad: MODEL { model = Squad/Parts/Command/Mk1-3Pod/Mk1-3 } If you change the name of the folder from 'Squad' to 'OfficalKerbalParts', the part will not be able to find it's model, and therefore won't load.

Note that they still show on SpaceDock as being for 1.3.1.

I believe that's actually something that was brought in to KSP1 because of discussions the KSP2 devs had with Scott Manley and others. So it's a backported feature.

A Kraken is generally any KSP bug (usually related to floating point, and/or intersections between parts/ships/planets) which can disassemble or violently throw your ship around. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Deep_Space_Kraken

Good question! I generally assume so, but they might be separate.

I'm pretty sure it's this one: Which is referred to as a 'Compound Drive' - but what that means no one's sorted out yet. It's hard to speculate without any more info - it's likely got something involving metallic hydrogen, but the question is if it's just a cluster of smaller drives, or if it's something more exotic is an open question. (And if it's something more exotic, what? Something dual mode? Some sort of ion enhancement system?) Whatever it is, no one's come up with a good explanation for that nozzle design that I've seen, really. Best is some sort of cluster, but even that's odd.

If you also have KIS installed, this will dupe the KIS wedges: +PART[USKASRadial]:AFTER[KIS] { @name=USKASRadial_BREAKINGGROUND !MODULE[ModuleKISInventory] {} MODULE { name = ModuleInventoryPart InventorySlots = 2 } } +PART[USKASWedge]:AFTER[KIS] { @name=USKASWedge_BREAKINGGROUND !MODULE[ModuleKISInventory] {} MODULE { name = ModuleInventoryPart InventorySlots = 2 } }

One thought would be that the initial trailer is to gauge interest on partly-completed project: If there's a lot of interest, they can attract investors to finish it and get finished. If not, they aren't out the full development costs. Another thought would be that they likely have the main game engine complete, but public reaction will allow them to decide how to develop some of the features - see the suggestion lists on this board. (And the fact that they were obviously taking notes from the guests they'd invited.) There's also the 'we've finally got enough to show something off!' impulse - and then they have to get back to work. Some things they don't want to spoil, and often a lot of the rest would just be retreads of the same info they've already got out. So they get back to work, and time passes.

Sure, but that just means a cluster of young stars with possibly a skybox tint. Still nothing that really affects gameplay. Point - and yes, that could be interesting. Hmm. Could work. I'd be worried about just how physical they are however - would you be able to land on/mine them? Move them? (And of course asteroid belts are very diffuse - it's not like you have to maneuver through them.) I suspect it would be. However it's a lot of extra compute for not much difference in nearly all cases. Though thinking about it there would likely be one defined reference viewpoint, which would make things be a bit odd...

To go down the list: Nebulae - I don't think there would actually be anything to notice gameplay-wise, in a Nebulae. It'd tint the skybox if you're inside it, and that's about it. Black holes - It might be interesting, but the really interesting parts of it would require N-body and relativity to be evident. Without those (and without things like life-support and radiation) it's basically just a slightly more dense star. All Jovian - Would be interesting, especially if they all had multiple moons. Asteroid belt - Do you mean lots of little bodies on rails? I think that might just be tedious, actually. If they're not on rails (so you can move them, etc.) then how many should there be in the world at startup? They're going to basically be overhead if they're constant and persistent, dragging down frame rates. Something like KSP1's asteroids work well, and I would like to see them set to spawn in various solar systems. Exotic star types (red, giant, white dwarf, neutron, etc...) - Fully interested here - though note for most practical purposes you won't notice all that much. They basically affect how close you can get to the star and how much light it's giving off. Binary/Trinary systems - Planets or stars? Either way, I'm in. Would be interesting to have binaries with planets orbiting one star, or orbiting their barycenter. Young system - Might be fun, might be boring - how would you know a system is young? If it's young enough to seriously notice, are there any planets? If there are planets, can you tell it from a not-so-young system? Real Solar system - While it would be an interesting easter egg, I think it would feel out of place. The scale and gravity would be all off from the rest of the universe.

The only thing we know about modding in KSP2 is that it's going to be *more* moddable than KSP1.