Missingno200

Thats fair, I suppose, although others have tried to counter this themselves. I'm in agreement.

Ehhh... frankly not a fan of that. They were supposed to be agendered but ended up male/female because of the male names of the original kerbals. The 2 are good enough, since more arguably doesn't add anything of value.

I don't think so. The way the video went, from memory, it sounded more like it was a whole claus added to the ToS. Said ToS was copied from KSP. Shouldn't really entertain it though, like I said the original video was privated, kind of removing credibility.

Doesn't matter, all glass is transparent. The most recent interviews confirmed that all IVA are exposed constantly, unlike KSP 1.

I don't agree, because I've seen a few procedural parts mods since 1.0 and they don't remotely play like an advanced(or really similar) version of Simple Rockets 2. I wasn't advocating for it, mind you. I don't like when those types of mods are added, unless they're solely to fill a gap that needed serious filling, like a fueled 0.65 to 8m(or something like that) diameter adapter. I was just curious about how and when it was ruled out, if officially stated.

I'm sorry, but when was this ruled out? We have procedural wings, whats wrong with procedural tank lengths? If we go by the old tech tree of KSP1, you could still make it make sense by capping the height and width limits of the fuel tanks, rather than giving a new part.

It wasn't a KSP 2 leak that was the threat, it was something in a legal document you'd have to agree to, in order to play KSP 2. That being said, I found the source in my history, and it is now a privated video, so it was probably all false. Take that as you will.

Oh good! A reason to practice racial discrimination in my favorite rocket building sim's sequel! Of course I'm kidding, I'm not soulless. That (hopefully obvious and probably a little insensitive) joke being said, for the sake of space race RPs that will no doubt pop up in the near future thanks to MP, I suspect that selecting certain traits, IE:color, glasses, hairstyles may be one major way they will help determine whose who, in case they like the same colors or something. Whether or not thats put into play is another story, but I'm all for diversity of appearance as long as it doesn't affect the gameplay itself in any way other than players assigning their own uses to it. ALMOST forgot:I really hope they don't stray too far away from BADA55 as a color, and the signature black hair. I'm fine with hues going 32 shades in any direction(even combining them for a total of 32,768 shades+the original) but it just wouldn't be the same if they were some radical new color that wasn't BADA55 in the slightest. Same with the hair, but I'll give that infinite more leeway, as long as the original hairstyles remain intact somewhere. Given what we've seen though, it doesn't look like they're going too far out of the way though, which I'm glad for. Also the skin materials sounds like a horrible, yet VERY intriguing idea that I want to see in some action before I decide truly.

I remember it being discussed not too long ago by someone, but I can't remember who. I think (emphasis on THINK) it may have been ShadowZone. It's 5 AM so I'll be looking for my source later, but I swear I heard about it around 2 weeks ago. I think it came from a ToS that probably leaked. Can't you use SteamDB to look at ToS'? The story bit was extrapolated by this info so its probably wishful thinking, but I can't think of much else that would warrant such measures.

No. Higher risk of leaks, (the following is sourced from a since privated video and may be entirely inaccurate) and from the debacle where T2 threatened to sue anyone for spoiling the game for others past launch day(quietly walked back), I doubt PD wants to let any major details leak, especially since there is supposedly a story to go with KSP 2.

Personally, I think LMP has it down pat. Not the vote-to-warp option, thats been explored both in Minecraft and DMP/LMP's settings and quickly gets out of control and difficult when you have 4 or more people, but rather the independent warps solution. You don't need a flowchart to understand it when you witness it in action, the problem here is that almost no one here seemingly PLAYED with LMP, and unfortunately, the system is better left seen than explained. On a related note, hey mods can we get LMP and DMP to be pointed out as acronyms for Light Multiplayer and Dark Multiplayer?

On mobile so I shall keep this short, but I suspect they'll take up my system to avoid this. Also, probably no achievements in general.

Not to discredit or anything, but considering we HAVE been arguing for this over 19 pages of this thread, and despite having literally 3 of the 15 or so proposed solutions available in mods like LMP, I suspect that it wouldn't be solved in several days worth of internal discussion inside Intercept. I'd set up a few LMP servers for everyone to test these features at their leisure, but I'm about to go on a trip so I can't host such a thing.

I have RISEN FROM MY GRAVE after multiple computer changes, to share my thoughts. I haven't read the full thread yet, so I apologize if it's a pointless post. Personally, I think it'll be like the OpenTTD system. Maybe a server browser for those that want public servers, but otherwise, you have private servers hosted by whoever wants to play. Then, you get to pick your team. Either you can play on your own separate team(boot everyone else who joins out or lock it, who knows?), or you can help with another team, with pooled resources and everything. This is of course just my thoughts, but judging by the relatively recent colony images, it looks like this might actually be the case. Or I'm totally wrong, who knows?

Yeah, I noted. So it's still somewhat relevant.

Nice work! I'm definitely going to use the knowledge used here to make my own, harder version of the "Gilly and back with 3 parts" challenge.

Oh dang, I was dead for a bit(school work got to me), I did not notice this got so popular. Thank you very much. Took a while to make it so I'm glad people like it. I tried that, it seems to ignore that logic too, although given the circumstances I may have just incorrectly done it. It confounds me why it does that. Yeah, I might set that up or participate in one when the FAM(free addon market) catches up eventually , but in the meantime, schoolwork is a major focus since school's wrapping up. This fills my heart up with pride. Thank you for putting me there, even if I'm 9 days late to respond. <Distressed mission control noises as you land without your landing gear deployed.> Yeah, you did it alright, congratulations on that! That's a lot harder than it looks honestly. You also can catch a glimpse of the easteregg craft in your video. As for scenarios, there's no real way to put a success indicator in them without meddling with the translation files and probably game files we don't even have the ability to edit successfully yet. A little bit annoying, but you can do? Yepperoni. Don't worry about it, it's not your fault, it's a weird way of how the game handles scenario files just ever so slightly differently. Kind of annoying though. Might make a V2 of this mission with a crewed module if I can get that to work without SAS. An excellent suggestion! <Fire department is called as mission control burns to the ground.> Seriously though, that's Jebediah levels of crazy and you succeeded. You are a certified badass, and you have my total respect for that one. I wish I was half as good of a pilot as you are. Sorry? Eheheh... Admittedly, I may have gone overboard when first making the scenario(Although if you had any even remotely barebones editing software like Windows Movie Maker, you could have just done a jump cut or even sped up the clip.) Not bad man, outside of the fact you decided to try to land in a crater(well I guess you didn't decide, you just kind of did), that went pretty smoothly. Ironically, the hardest part of this entire scenario isn't even landing without SAS or reaction wheels, it's trying to keep the lander on its landing gear. Overall, I'm proud with this result, and I'm working on a new scenario, however first, I may make a simpler scenario to keep you on your toes and update this one before releasing that really big scenario. There's a chance I may never finish this big scenario because I have issues actually designing craft that can go from HKO to lunar landing. In any case, prepare to have this as your theme song when it releases.

Usually based on a generation of technology or what they use for most of their thrust, followed by a shortened version of the body they're visiting, and sometimes I even throw that out just for something like "Translunar." For example on my first set, "SRB 13 KN-M", which would be Solid Rocket Boosters (rocket) 13, KerbiN (moon) Mun.

I thought it was an interesting video, but too bad there was no game audio and what audio was there was really quiet. Also, hey that's my post! Feels weird... Anyways, I've been working on a massive scenario and have been rigorously testing things for it. Edit:Pic related to the scenario I'm referring to. It's an easteregg so don't click the spoiler if you don't want to get spoiled on an easteregg of the scenario.

Speaking as a poor guy, I don't actually own Making History(I even made a bit of a comment about this(although it appears I was a dirty liar way back then and am still a very rambly person today) way back during the announcements when I asked about early access Steam users getting the expansion pack), which means that no, it's not even remotely a part of that since you can do this entirely within the base game with some manual save file fiddling. On the note of someone not making a scenario for KSP up until now, it's not exactly the same thing but I believe Kethane used to have a tutorial, or at least this guy from a thread that I can no longer find said that it might've. I know there have been a bunch of threads with people asking about how to create custom scenarios as far back as 2012 but as far as I know, this is the first one publicly released. As for the entire managing to do the exceedingly rare comment, I'm not sure if it needs a response but might as well be thorough here:Well, where there's a will there is definitely a way, and I suppose I was sort of driven to get my name on the pages of history. That is certainly one way to get someone to innovate for new categories for gameplay, by promising them a page on history and also to be the first one to truly break ground there. Semi-related fun fact:The entire name of the scenario(Making Scenariory) is a reference to the Making History expansion pack. I know I can add SAS to the Stayputnik myself but frankly, that means I have to wait for another while after each update, plus sometimes I want the challenge. Plus, to be honest, I wouldn't be too angry about this if the Stayputnik wasn't alone(either have consistency or don't make a black sheep, pick one and stick with it), but there's basically an option when starting new games that you could literally rename to "Enable SAS on Stayputnik"(referring to the option to "Enable SAS on all probe cores") because the Stayputnik is the only one without SAS. Even the Rovermate has SAS for some reason. This option is a minor problem when it comes to custom scenarios, and especially a big problem the very basis of Making Scenariory, where you're not supposed to have SAS. Ah, no worries man, I'm a bit surprised I'm the first to break ground here. I hope others do start doing the same, although I might make a scenario editor to help others get into this, seeing as it is a little fiddly to work with. There is SO much potential with scenarios it's not even funny. Some final things I thought I'd talk about... A problem I encountered with making custom scenarios, which frustrated me a bit, is that you cannot turn off the SAS for all probe cores in scenarios, unless presumably you modify how scenarios work directly in the engine. I do not know why this is the case, considering all the other options from the commsnet to even some more obscure and really random ones(I mean, seriously, who needed to ability to disable the MAIN MENU!?) work just fine, but there might be some work arounds for it, maybe even just making a custom probe part that is somehow exempt from this difficulty option. Now, scenario, I've poked around a little but I'm still breaking ground on what you can and cannot do, but honestly, there is a LOT you can do in this game that I'm surprised your even allowed to do. My favorite one, the thing I think might become popular with most scenario creators, is the fact you can literally define CUSTOM TECH TREES for your scenario. This you means you TOTALLY can do a more difficult KSP without even needing to touch the existing tech trees or fiddling with mods. I think you can even get it to not look in the gamedata folder but just the general KSP Folder for these tech trees, which offers a lot. I think there is a way to also add the tutorial's popups to scenarios, but I haven't really tested it yet, but if this is the case, we are looking at some insane possibilities with scenarios. Honestly, since 0.17, Squad hasn't done much with scenarios, and it feels like a crime because the scenarios are so versatile and even have the ability to work in career and science gamemodes, it really feels like it's a crime that must be rectified by the community. This scenario isn't my first foray into the scenario scene, by the ways, but it is the first successful one. My original first had you dealing with 4 parts and was designed as basically a challenge to get to the moon, but I got delayed heavily as a result to a hard drive crash that basically destroyed my steam to tinker with KSP for a while. I am still somehow really bad at forum posts apparently, because I accidentally screwed up. Whoops.

I just noticed the entire premise is screwed because I can't seem to disable SAS for all probes... with scenarios. Squad, why do you do this to me? I guess pretend the SAS isn't there? I'll have to think of a new way to make this scenario more challenging later. How this got past me is beyond me...

I actually have no clue where this goes, so please move it if it's in the wrong spot. What a wonderful day it is, on the really old outdated and frankly nostalgic at this point launchpad, where a mission is about to take a place. A mission that will Make History and... Actually I'm pretty sure noone's going to jump at this. You can see the moon-Alright you know what, that's enough of that. If you wanna skip everything and just download the file, click here. This post is an absolute mess and I do not blame you for just wanting to skip most of it. If you want to read my ramblings, please continue on. I plan to clean up this post eventually, but it's 5 in the morning and I'm tired. Making Scenariory is (maybe? Probably? Unlikely?) the first user created scenario(not that it means much...) and it's what it says on the tin. A critique on the Stayputnik, and the absolute utter annoyance it is to not have SAS on it when literally EVERY OTHER UNMANNED COMMAND CORE THAT HAS EXISTED DOES. Ignoring my flash of anger there, critics will say that this scenario was designed to be the worst possible scenario in history, and then rudely ask you how the heck you got into their house and why your pants were down, but BAH, what do they know about art? They're not the artists, I'm the artist! I've gone through the effort to make the mission as challenging and as painful as possible. This means you cannot timewarp the mission, there is no quick loading, no map, and ESPECIALLY, for some reason, NO GOING BACK TO THE MAIN MENU. Yeah, I'm just as surprised as you are that I'm even allowed to do that. The craft you see below is the craft you will be using to land on the Mün, which appears to have wasted fuel and oxidizer, so you basically only have 1/2 of it left, and 8 units of monopropellant. Sitting in a low orbit around the Mün, deorbiting is the easy part. It's the landing and not spiraling out of control that is the hard part. It's possible, but it's really hard. To install, download the scenario and put it in your scenarios folder that is located in the KSP saves folder. By default, for windows, this is located here(C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\saves\scenarios\). After that is done, you're good to go. You don't even need to reboot KSP!

Yeah, it's completely unrelated. I don't play KSP in fullscreen(a habit picked up thanks to games like ROBLOX and GMod where if your computer is not good enough and the program freezes, you're SoL), so that bug wouldn't have been it. Although it is a very similar result. Thanks for sharing!

I had no plans to share my account, but thank you! This is the exact guide I needed for him!

Thanks, sorry about that. It's not working. I can install Codename Gordon just fine but I cannot install the KSP demo for some reason.