DStaal

What - you don't like the old 'dig a deep hole, drop a nuclear bomb in, build a base in the resulting cave' style of base-building?

There's been a fair amount of discussion back and forth on how complex this would be and how it might be set up in the discussions on signal delay. (As such an AI/automation is necessary to play with signal delay, and is really the main issue with it.)

Except that landing with them requires that you fly *through* the results of a series of nuclear bombs...

They could also be laughing at the hilarious bugs...

To clarify on that further from what JadeOfMar said: Generating a static set of resources and saving it into the save file is efficient and works well - for small worlds. KSP's world is *not* small. It instead generates a random seed at the start of the game, and actual resource distribution at any point (and some surface features, and a few other things...) is generated on-demand from that seed, every time you need it. This means there's very little statically stored in the save file, and you can add/remove resources, features, etc. just by enabling/disabling the generation code to place them. It also means that your landed ship may not *quite* be landed when you come back after leaving the area due to rounding errors in the floating-point math. (It wouldn't surprise me that resource distribution would vary slightly as you came back to an area - but it would be unnoticable in-game as you typically only get a few digits of precision there in the displays.)

Given that the total budget for the US foreign aid and NASA *combined* is about 1% of the total US budget, I don't really see those as either-or.

If we don't care about the exact size - The mod ART scales up asteroids to a semi-realistic scale (about 10x, IIRC) for the Kerbal system, and I've once had one auto-generate that was on an impact path to Kerbin. Would a semi-static 'event' that made one of those easy to find be enough? (I actually tried and failed to deflect it...)

As for the 'mile across being to small to actually do anything' - that does depend on what it's going to hit. (And speed of course - but trying to intercept something with relativistic velocities wouldn't be much of a fun challenge for most...) Kerbin, yeah that's not going to do much. Gily however it might be a serious impact - and if there were something smaller...

And without automation, the actual delay makes the game impossible. So... What's the argument for delay again?

The only one I know of that does anything explicitly with gravity is Kerbal Health: Note that many LS mods - USI-LS included - have some rotating parts with high bonuses to some life support stat, so it's often tracked indirectly to an extent.

In theory I like this. In practice - to have it in *any* difficulty level you have to have the needed autonomy features built in as well. That is a lot of extra work for the devs to get into place for a set of features that's somewhat divisive to have in the game in the first place. (There's still a fair amount who feel that MechJeb is 'cheating'.) Then the question is when do you allow the autonomy features to be used? Just with signal delay? All the time? Just in the easiest and hardest difficulty modes? And having the autonomy features would change the gameplay quite a bit - you're no longer seat-of-your-pants flying, you're programming steps. (Even if the interface is simple and easy to use.) Does that make it easier? Harder? Better? Worse? I'm not sure. All of this results in a lot of work and effort balancing *two* new mechanics into the game - and if it's on a difficulty option, that balance is only going to be for a subset of the players. Is that worth the development time? Or is it better left to mods, which don't have to worry as closely about the balance of the rest of the game? My feeling is that it's better left to mods, at least unless the autonomy features are already something you're developing for other reasons.

Star Theory hasn't even released an image of the UI officially. People are getting up in arms about a YouTuber's diagram to help explain what he saw in an interview. They can't even slap pre-alpha on it because it's not theirs.

If a planet is rotating faster than it's escape velocity, it's surface would escape into space - thrown off by it's own rotation. You could have pretty fast rotation (and it'd be an interesting challenge), but 'faster than escape velocity' is just unrealistic.

How is either of those different than *not* having com delay? (How do you know it's not the case in the current KSP, without mods?)

There have been a couple of threads on this. The pros of course are increased realism, and increased challenge. The cons that the challenge is in an awkward place, and you'd have to give the player additional tools to deal with it - tools which would either themselves be a large challenge to use, or if they're simplistic may not meet the needs. (While making some of the play easier.) I can see the point, but I'll admit I'm mostly on the side against - I don't really think it adds anything valuable to gameplay for most players. I can see it being a difficulty option - but you'd need a way to automatically execute at least maneuver nodes.

KSP1 isn't a game that taxes your graphics card. It wouldn't surprise me if the same is true of KSP2, even though I do expect the required specs to be higher.

Micromanagement == harder to use, and you'll use something harder to use less than you'd use something easy to use. He's saying they specifically limited how easy it is to use to keep it from being overused.

No, the best place to ask about that would be it's own support thread: First though, I’d suggest you read this to make sure you provide the right information:

And that's where you have the problem: The video is about the *layout,* but not the *style.* Judging the style from that video is like judging how a person looks from their 3-year old's picture of them.

There's a fair number of people who seem to believe ShadowZone's 5-minute photoshop job is going to be the final UI. I'm not entirely sure why...

In a Kickstarter campaign if you fail to reach the goal, you get *nothing.* The supporters are never charged. So they made no money on this. (There are plenty of Kickstarter campaigns where they reached the goal and then failed to deliver a product - then they get the money and walk away. But that's a different situation.) As for KSP2 - TakeTwo bought the rights from Squad. It's folly to assume they did so to do nothing with them. This or something similar was likely the plan the entire time.

Can you show us how you cloned it?

They're orientation-sensitive. Are you using the small ones or the large ones? The large ones have to be lined up at 0% - even 180% won't cut it. (The smaller will dock at 0 or 180%, though they sometimes take a bit to get into place.)

To be clear: This is a photoshop mock-up by someone who saw the current UI, it's not an actual in-game screenshot.

Get in a boat and go the other direction.