LoSBoL

While the provided fov for 21:9 and 32:9 aren't that bad, it would be very welcome to set your own fov like in KSP. First they have to 'release' other than 16:9 native resolutions (what's the hold up?), I'm confident at some point in time, we'll be able to set the fov ourselves.

The last time I've played multi-player was against the wife, playing all night against each other in Unreal Tournament 2003 in only one death match map called 'Gael' , a bottle of Bourbon got involved, we had a blast. When playing KSP I'm playing it like free spirit or achiever, depending on the mood. If I'd ever play multi-player again I'd probably be the philanthropist.

I'll just cross post here because I have the same experience ; Although I really appreciate the very long list of bugs that have been fixed, from which I can certainly say they are 'game breaking' in a good sense creating a better KSP2, it looks like not only the low end side has had their graphics toned down. I can understand as to why they did so because it's gets a huge boost in performance for lower end machines, but on high settings the loading distance of trees is horendous, when flying around the KSC the trees pop up and go and the forests in the near distance are gone, the speed at which thje trees pop up and dissapear makes a nervous picture and with the anti aliasing lines are dancing around the screen. Also the texture remaining when the trees are gone are bad looking. The small loading distance is focused mainly around the KSC terrain, it does not seem to have had an effect on other terrains loading distances for trees and such. The performance took a right turn, but to me for higher end machines an 'ultra' setting for loading distance would be very much appreciated to get the better looking imgage quality of the KSC and its surroundings back. This is 'high' settings 5120x1440 on 0.1.2.0 Also, first we had the 'warp time' bar in the screenshots, now its 'game paused'...

Oh, I just love rovering the new Mün, Every corner gives another great view, It really feels like I'm exploring

Although I really appreciate the very long list of bugs that have been fixed, from which I can certainly say they are 'game breaking' in a good sense creating a better KSP2, it looks like not only the low end side has had their graphics toned down. I can understand as to why they did so because it's gets a huge boost in performance for lower end machines, but on high settings the loading distance of trees is horendous, when flying around the KSC the trees pop up and go and the forests in the near distance are gone, the speed at which thje trees pop up and dissapear makes a nervous picture and with the anti aliasing lines are dancing around the screen. Also the texture remaining when the trees are gone are bad looking. The small loading distance is focused mainly around the KSC terrain, it does not seem to have had an effect on other terrains loading distances for trees and such. The performance took a right turn, but to me for higher end machines an 'ultra' setting for loading distance would be very much appreciated to get the better looking imgage quality of the KSC and its surroundings back. This is 'high' settings 5120x1440 on 0.1.2.0 Also, first we had the 'warp time' bar in the screenshots, now its 'game paused'...

Woop, there it is.

Found these ; Now I'd want a direct comparison between something 12th or 13th Gen I7 or I9 compared to a 7800X3D

Specs weren't posted, but here's a claimed 1300 part vessel with FPS in the corner. Playable? 10 till 19 frames per second. Don't think KSP1 did better?

Just about 12 hours in version 0.1, after the 0.1.1 patch it got a whole lot more playable due to bug squating, so I've put in about 40 more hours on steam and about 10 more circumventing steam since. Eager to find out how much more playable it gets when 0.1.2 drops Wednesday.

I'm curious as well, although it's way to early to tell with KSP2 in its current state. Overall performance needs to be optimized first, but when it does I'd really like to know what would get best performance. I'm currently running an 12700KF, Hypertreading off gets me the same performance as on, likewise with the efficiency cores on or off. X3D CPU's have been around for a little while now, but its hard to find good comparisons or benchmarks for KSP1 sadly.

Now if only we can find humans which we can strap into a command seat for decades. Humans are not held alive with just food, water, waste management and oxygen. That's just fulfilling in their primary needs and won't keep people alive for long. It's not just mission profiles and technology (I don't think we are there yet, but that's just my 'uneducated' opinion) which are barriers in colonizations, it's humans themselves. We've exchanged views, up to the point were running in circles, and like I already mentioned, we almost share the exact same opinion on what KSP is, and what it allows us to do. We just argue from a different startingpoint which I don't know how to get it across to you, so this will be my last post on this.

That's not my point, at all, I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating that. If KSP would have mimicked life, we would only be sending probes and rovers beyond the mün. Not much game in that, so the devs choose very wisely for us to be playing with Kerbals instead of humans, so we can have a game that allows us to go beyond what we as humans are capable off. And I'll repeat again, I'm not arguing that because we use Kerbals, we shouldn't have life support.

I'm not arguing that because 'we have Kerbals instead of humans' life support shouldn't be in the game. I'm not debating at all if LS should or should not be in the game. What I keep trying to get across is that KSP does not lend itself to mimic real life, and because we can't we are shooting Kerbals up in space, which we can happily strap into a chair for decades without dealing with real life issues. That's not an argument to not have Life Support but it keeps being seen as such. KSP is a game, a game which is a game because of Kerbals. It wouldn't be a game if we'd use Humans. it wouldn't be a game anymore because we'd have to mimic real life, and for space travel it would end quickly because we as humans have to factor in real life issues that are involved in that. Again, this is not an argument to not have Life Support. Kerbals enable us to not deal with Real Life and have a game. Kerbals can do everything we can't do with Humans. What is the only thing that KPS mimics from real life? Orbital Mechanics, other than that nothing in KSP resembles Real Life. We can't build contraptions like we do in the game irl We can't strap humans into command chairs and leave them in there for decades. Kerbals however, can, and we do so so we have a game.

There are no inconsistencies in my opinion. Like I said, I think the game is done with Kerbals instead of humans because we don't put humans in capsules for decades, we don't use them as crashtest dummies or strand them somewhere. If we would play with humans the game becomes more realistic, but if you do we wouldn't be able to go very far past the moon, because we haven't been farther then the moon irl, because of what I already mentioned above (next to technical barriers which prevent us at this point in time. I'd argue there is much less similarities between KSP and real space programs, the inconsistencies between real life and Kerbals are there, and most probably, because of these inconsistencies Kerbals are what we shoot into space. And if you look closely, we don't build rockets in the same way, we are far from managing spaceflight in real life the same way, and we are definitely not able to approach exploration in the same way. Because we're humans and not able to do it like we are able to do with Kerbals. (which all doesn't mean I'm arguing against life support in KSP, 'we need it in KSP because of real life' just isn't an argument to get in the game for me, because the rest of KSP is far from real life. ) Thanks for the update on real life casualties, I've learned something new today.

No offence taken, with so many playstyles it's each to their own. We actually do not defer on opinion that much. To me the reason we are enabled to ignore challenges that are faced in real life space, is because we are shooting up kerbals instead of humans. We wouldn't send humans into a capsule for decades or strand them somewhere. So there is 'fiction' involved either way running a spaceprogram which we can not in real life. (if I recalled correctly irl nobody ever died in space) Understandable, did I expect it being there? Not really, because of earlier statements in KSP as to why they didn't implement it, that gave me the impression that it would also count for KSP2.

I think it's the main reason that we are having an Kerbal Space Program and not a Human Space Program, because it might not be fun to put people in space ships for decades, or getting them killed, or have fun with them using them as ragdolls or crash test dummies. #quite a few Kerbals have been harmed during my gameplay, most of the times not on purpose, please don't hate me.

Where you able to select this resolution in the settings of the game, or did you need to manipulate the settings.json file? I need to manipulate settings.json to get KSP2 to run in other than 16:9 resolutions. When doing so KSP2 scales beautifully in any resolution and scales like 21 or 32:9, except for the loading screens which get stretched. So the game is supporting it, it just isn't selectable in the settings to me and probably others as well. Which I would like to see in the near future.

Great! It could use a POV control as well, next to native monitor resolution support for other than 16:9 screens.

Maybe in the next patch? But untill its fixed you should be able to work around it.

Since everyone is in agreement that it should be Kerbal Space Program 2(.0) it is time to change below topic title which we've all been looking at with soar eyes for almost a month now;

The poll is missing the correct option, which would be; Kerbal Space Program 2(.0) .

Yes they are new-user features, which opened up the game to a much, much broader market they were selling to. From the 'figure it out yourself' to 'I'm giving you the tools' to do what you want. Look at how the reviews grew on steam after these updates, SQUAD depleted the market they were selling to, T2 expanded that. No it won't, like T2 taking over KSP rousse, the red shell rouse, all forgotten. They knew a short term revenue would not harm the long term in the end, because they know they are going to keep selling when they get it right. And in the mean time, while KSP2 is not up for the task, they'll keep selling KSP alongside. They bloody hell knew what the state of KSP2 was at launch, you really think that caught them by surprise? No, they did it anyway, bacause of money and knowing what they are prognossing for the future. Follow the money, look at the key succes factors of the past and what they are in the future.

Would that have made you happier? In any case, getting what you want wouldn't get you what you need.

Yes they do, they funded development and gave direction in what they needed the game to be. SQUAD 'by itself' didn't get further than some localization to the game to expand the market they'd sell to. There has been a big philosophy change that was becoming gradually more visible with each update since T2 bought the IP, which was to expanding the market they could sell to. Start up 1.3.0 and compare it to 1.12 to see where it got from there. Hoe many times do you need to hear 'no microtransactions', they didn't buy the IP for that, they bought it because there is no end in people buying this game, and DLC's like to robotics for years to come. It's a goldmine like KSP was and still is. Because what is everybody that gives a negative review saying? Buy KSP instead. Which again brings in revenue. KSP will be selling for a long time next to KSP2. You need to look at this long term, T2 does.