Daniel Prates

Joining in late in the discussion. I think you have a super valid point. However I wouldn't tie specific parts to specific milestones or experiments. We still need science to be a "currency" of sorts, to use it with some discretion. However there could be different science points to be used to unlock different parts. Without thinking too much about it, there could be (for instance) three of them, like "physics", "mechanics" and "bio".... or something. Different experiments would yeald different points, and a part like a capsule could require, say, 2 bio + 2 mech, while a truss would require 1 physics..... or something like that.

Of all things still mysterious about KSP2, one that sure is not one of them is "OMG they are only doing it to stop handing out free DLC for alter kampfers". Specially so because developing KSP2 will be waaaaay more expensive than funding new DLC for ksp1 - so that couldn't be the reason. This forum can have some weird discussions sometimes.... even now some other guys are discussing to death, in another thread, how reasonable it is to have space elevators (yawn) on a rocket-building game.....

I too find all those propositions ludicrous for the game, let alone even calling them "near" in real life! Here we have a game to entertain us BUILDING FREAKING ROCKETS and the idea of rocketless travel creeps in - with semi-fantasy tech, no less. Why not a StarTrek-a-like teleporting station, for that matter? Yes elevators are viable on paper but we are clearly waaaaaaay far from it beeing slightly viable. Centuries and centuries in my mind. Rail accelerators too, in whichever form and proposition. Its all more like well-informed specularion than actual, viable propositions.

Thats good too.

@nejc yes, I was trying to tie-in both topics, not to debate a different topic. I too think that for game purposes they most likelly keep all stars static, so that is something to consider in this discusison as the perspective may differ. No sense in arguing to death an interesting topic only to find out later that the devs took a different approach. This is relevant. How things play out, including the application of the laws of physics (relativity too) relates to whether interestellar travel is a staight line in a void of forces, or if it is done in a gravitational field centered on a baricenter. @HebaruSan you are right, of course. I merely meant the physics are the same. But the scale of things change what is feasible or not. A hohmann transfer to another star takes too long in our real-life. On the other hand, a kerbal section of the "k"alaxy would probably be a lot smaller in scale. Guess we will have to wait and see. If the vincinity of Kerbol is closely knit together, maybe our orion drive analogues could allow a trip like this: decrease altitude closer to Kerbol, burn main drive there, hohmann from there here to Kentauri. I feel I am veering off topic, but my point was, all depends on knowing if the void between stars is a forceless void or if it crosses the SoI of a baricenter somewhere far away. That's the part I wanted to add to this discussion, nothing more.

That whole interstellar travel in KSP is promising to be one colossal goatfudge in the desert (ha! Two movie references in one). One thing that has been bothering me is that stars are not just laying in space. I mean, Kerbol is, but that is because up until now it was alone in the whole universe. Now that we are getting more stars, the very first thing that crossed my mind is: are they orbiting around some galactic baricenter? I don't mean that this baricenter has to be a proper object in the game world, but the stars are obviously moving in different speeds and will that be modeled? If Kerbol is the lower-altitude one, it is slowly overtaking the other stars. Will that be taken into account? This may be more relevant than it seems. You see, if we have three stars that are mere static, fixed points in the universe, travelling from one to the other is a straight line - specially so if each star has a SoI, which you can leave. But if modeled more realistically, travelling from Kerbol to AlphaKentauri (let's call it that) is the very same mechanic as leaving Kerbin towards Duna. A rendezvous with another moving object, with a interstellar travel path which is actually an elliptic orbit within a gravitational field (the baricenter's field), with all implications (you slowing down as you approach a higher altitude target object, for instance - a fact that, alone, completely changes the idea that you have to accelerate than decelerate when you arrive at your destination star). How is it going to work in the game? This has been pestering me ever since I read they were going to include more stars.

Now that's about the best post I have read in a long time.

I personally do not consider better IVA a primary concern, as the game is not a "sim" in the classic meaning of the word. It's more of an "immersion" thing with IVAs, sometimes you wanna looky-looky from the bowels and feel like you are actually inside. However if they do focus on that, for god's sake lets place the seats in such a height that the kerbal can actually look foward! In many cockpits the pilot just stares straight at the instruments and looking through the window does not allow looking foward. Most annoying, specially with planes/spaceplanes.

Great thread, the devs should at least have the data on how people feel about those issues.

Also, evidence of HALF-LIFE 3!!!

That is probably wise. Keeping this game "newtonian" preserves that "scientific" feel that made the game so loved.

@Geschosskopf I think axial tilt may potentially be relevant from anywhere and to anywhere, if it exists and the degree is significant enough. Even for bodies that are not already in the same plane. May affect for instance the launch window, making a planar maneuver (which you would have to do anyway) more or less of a deal. It all depends on your flightplan I suppose. What I think would be apropriate is a scaling degree of difficulty as the career progresses. So for instance kerbin+mun could stay as it is, whereas Duna could gain a slight tilt of 3, maybe 5 degrees. You know, enough to make your return flights to kerbin a little more challenging.... Edit: ... because, you know, if you leave from the surface and to orbit, and there is no tilt, you can just point 90 degrees and climb, starting anytime. Time of departure can be now, 15 mins from now, 2 hours from now.... But if you want to leave a body with tilt and want your end orbit to be as close to a given target plane as possible, there is a window where that is less costly. Outside of that window, and you end up in an orbit necessarily demanding some normal/antinormal correction. So my point is, yeah. That is a welcome chalenge. But perhaps not right away on your first flights!

I 'think' there is a limit somewhere. KSP space is not limitless like real space. The ksp wiki says something about that, I am too lazy to go there right now and check it. Now to the point. The info we already have mentions new late-game tech. What do you guys supose that is? Uber-speculative things like warp etc.? I confess I don't know how I feel about that. The fact is, even today, getting to bodies beyond Jool is a damn bore, it takes yeeeeeaaaaarrrrrsssss. Players who use LS mods, body/mental health mods, failures mods etc. rarely go there (I assume. I know I don't, except very rarely) because it can be as prohibitive as in real life. Now imagine going to other stars! Dayum! One interesting aspect is whether the stars are static, or if they orbit around some baricenter and thus change position in relation to eachother overtime.

That is a good point. Its like n-body phisics: more realistic and good for the hard-core gamers, but probably way too much for most everyone else. However.... maybe the more basic bodies could stay the same - kerbin and the mun, certainly - while other more middle/late game destinations like eloo could gain a tilt. Minmus is another good candidate too, perhaps.

HUZZAAAAAAH, you did it @Ger_space. I too tested - with both kerbin side and KSC extended - and it works fine now.

You learn something every day! Tks.

Boy, do I .... I think those are the best looking aircraft cockpits around. The cargo sections are great too. I can't wait to see the whole thing completed.

This is so true. I started playing with no reverting and quicksaving a while back. Test flights and unmanned simulations with crewed craft became a most enjoyable portion of my game. As to the LES parts: I dont feel the "abort" button all that intuitive to use. To my personal tastes the actiongroups buttons feel more handy. So for everycraft I concoct my own abort system, usually with more functions than a mere escape booster, and tie the whole thing to a key.

I feel I must point out @Ger_space that posting this issues is not intended to be "nagging", but rather, trying to help by fleshing out possible issues. That load order thing... it could be just that. With all my mods I am used to read in the loading screen that MM has loaded close to 20k items. When i I updated KK it fell to 17k and change. Then I deleted KK, kerbinside (plus GAP) and the reading actually RISED to 18k and change!

I do remember. I said it myself in my post. My point was to, for one, pay a compliment to the modelling of the cockpits, and to ask in order to make sure it was I who wasnt forgeting something, like a dependency.

Just have to report that the same thing happened to me. I use kerbinside along KK, and updating the mod made me lose everything. Not even KK's UI is showing up anymore. I had the whole thing from CKAN, I will try to unistall the whole thing and do it again manually. Then I'll report my findings.

The cockpits are positivelly beautiful! However even though I have crewed them, in flight the kerbals disapear. By that I mean, their portraits on the bottom left are completelly absent. So it would seem that, not only there is no IVA, there isn't even a placeholder for them. I am not complaining, it is clear that this mod is under development. I was just wondering if that it what it is supposed to be right now or if I installed perhaps lacking something.

That is not exactly right, is it? If the new game becomes "minecraft in space with lootboxes and microtransactions" you also either play it or you don't. What is your point then? Now, I am not saying the new dev team will screw up so badly. But it is our job to debate this. I always though that arguments like "if you dont like it dont buy it" not only useless, its also against the whole idea of a game strongly attached to its community. Why do we dabate so much then?

The main point made by @CyclonicTuna in the OP, regarding multiplayer (which I agree completelly) got sidelined by the silly discussion of wether it has been development for one year or not, or if people have the rigbt to speculate or not. The OP is trying to say, which is what we should be discussing deeper, thar the new developers MIGHT take multiplayer as a main focus, one that could take away effort from other areas of the game (which is bad enough) or even make this a multiplayer-focused game (which would be a catastrophe). Elsewhere I read in this forum of people asking if there would be "lootboxes", then I though "jeeez, do these people know what ksp really is?" Ksp 2 allowing two players would be fun in some respects. It being though a multiplayer focused game however would probably result a whole different beast, and I daresay, a commercially driven one made for an entirelly different audience than what we have today. And I will say something else: even if thousands of post around the forum say "can I haz multiplayer?", that doesn't mean "the community wants multiplayer". To be able to say that requires more profund knowledge and info. Who is asking? What is game experience? What does he mean exactly with multiplayer? Things like that have to be pondered, lest we end up getting "minecraft in space". So yes, we have every right to go ahead and try to convey that opinion to the devs.

I imagine if flying into them will have any discernible effect, like creating a wake as you displace the particles. I am all for that kind of kinky sheat, but not at the expense of game performance.