Chilkoot

I hit the same issue, then realized you need to start the burn first at 1x time, then increase the warp.

Spaceplanes with utility beyond Kerbin's SOI are going to be more challenging now with the high-ISP engines using hydrogen as a propellant. The days of OP SSTA spaceplanes may be over, which is fine as those were a bit ridiculous, honestly.

I'm having this issue in the VAB. I can only rotate around a single part on a craft, so if I build a longer plane or rover, I can't effectively view the end farthest from the control module. Arrow keys do nothing for me in the VAB, middle button only works for vertical movement, and still rotates on the horizontal. Am I missing something?

Just FYI, the old terminals didn't have a GPU of any kind, just a framebuffer which essentially displayed a segment of system RAM directly to the screen.

Just a frame buffer and a VT-100 my dude. No GPU required. This of course is a joke/sophism. What this thread is really about is "Does one need a discrete graphics card, or can it be played with integrated graphics?" In it's current state, folks will need a dedicated graphics card, but who knows where we'll be after years of optimization.

Well, you *can* actually play KSP 1 like that (telnet from a terminal), via kOS! Due to security restrictions on mods, it takes some networking wizardry to actually control the game fully from remote via a terminal, but when you get it working, it's amazing! https://ksp-kos.github.io/KOS/general/telnet.html

Great idea. The KSP 1 OST is on Spotify, let's hope the new OST lands there too!

I don't think this makes a lot of sense in this particular situation as the developer is not self-funded, nor will they see any of the revenue from the store. The publisher, Private Division, as a subsidiary of publishing juggernaut Take-Two is bankrolling everything and really have ultimate control over what is released to the public and when (and at what price). Nate and crew are on salary, hired by the publisher-owned development shop, Intercept Games. They have as much autonomy as the publisher ultimately permits them. Take-Two's financial year-end is March 31, 2023. KSP 2's been on earnings projections in investor guidance since FY'21, and Private Division absolutely had to get some kind of revenue on the books for this FY, or there would be some serious (unfriendly) discussions with the board and shareholders. Several months ago, the dev. shop was handed a mandate to change tack and be ready to release a minimum viable product into EA or potentially risk project termination altogether. No one (esp. Take-Two) wants that, but a company their size can cut bait on a multi-million-dollar project if it's seen as a black hole with no turnaround in sight (I've seen it first hand). So you're def. right that this EA release was a financial decision, but not in a fund-raising way, but in an accounting/reporting way. Maybe even in a cover-your-ass way for the publisher reporting upstream to Take-Two.

Curious if anyone knows of a way to make a joystick work for piloting airplanes in this release? It appears the only controls are available are keys, so probably no way to map analog controls... I was hopeful as there were flight sticks on developers desks in a few of the videos. This makes me think native support will probably be included in the future, but I'm so bad at piloting airplanes, I was hoping to find a way to make a joystick work. Any leads appreciated!!

That's the thing - Intercept isn't reaching into anyone's pocket here. They've been really forthcoming regarding the state of this EA release, and fans who may be on the fence about buying have lots of access to performance reports, gameplay videos, etc. If the current problems with performance and lack of features are going to anger you - take a beat. Keep your money in your pocket and check back in April.

Hmm... I wouldn't rule out the possibility that you are actually a sentient strain of garlic and currently dreaming that you're human. I just get a funny feeling the kid might be right...

I heard about Pluto. That's messed up, right?

There's a lot of frustration with the scope of the release, but as we sharpen the pitchforks, we need to bear in mind that the decision to go live Feb 24 as a scaled-down EA rests entirely with the publisher/producer (the money folks). Take-Two's financial year end is March 31, and Private Division really needed to get something on the books for this project, as it's already years behind. It's like the constant tug-of-war between engineering and sales in any company that makes something. Engineers are scrambling to build something at least half usable, while sales is promising the world and wondering why it wasn't done yesterday. There's really no doubting Intercept's vision and enthusiasm and just plain belief in KSP 2. However, they have been so focused on minutia like geologically "sound" planets, they may have poorly prioritized overall development, and now here we are at a late, arguably expensive, lukewarm release. If Intercept is given the time and funding they need long-term, chances are good they'll end up with a great product, but - historically - games with big problems at release very seldom bounce back to be broadly successful, even if they become great titles eventually (Duke Nukem and Bard's Tale IV come to mind).

NDGT has a pretty bad reputation in the academia crowd, too. Not sure what his general public perception is like, but it may be an association that Intercept/PD don't want.

There was a serious thread on the Steam forums about this the other day. 'Tis a silly place.

There was charm to it when all you could do in KSP was launch and de-orbit. Once progression modes were added and launches mattered, noodle rockets and the Kraken stayed "cute" like the grown-up dog that still nips and pees on the carpet.

Good way to put it. Colonies to be meaningful and give a real feeling of achievement/advancement/conquest, but not onerous to manage. E.g., if we need a colony on Dres to research metallic hydrogen and unlock the new engine tech - and also produce the fuel for it - that's a good use of a colony, but I don't want to be clicking on some admin building every game month to tell Kerbals what to do. Once the colony is established, it should really be "set it and forget it", unless you want to expand or otherwise actively improve it via new tech, to increase production, add more efficient logistics connections, etc.

I'm struggling to find a source here, but I'm sure I heard the KSP 2 resource collection/store/transport system will be very similar to the MKS WOLF paradigm that was introduced in KSP 1 under the USI mod suite. Not sure if Bob is working with Intercept or not, but the similarities b/w current WOLF implementation and things Nate reveals about colonies just seem too similar to be a coincidence. WOLF transport routes and resource management are quite a different beast than the previous MKS incarnations, and it took a lot of getting used to, honestly - with life support, at least, it feels unnecessarily complex. It's absolutely better, but if you're an MKS old-schooler it will certainly take some getting used to.

^ Truth. There are boatloads of negativity on public forums, but it's unlikely that much of that will translate directly into review bombing. Inciting people to review bomb (buy/review/refund) is also bannable on Valve's forums, so I hope the multiple posts promoting this kind of activity are removed if/when Intercept starts actively moderating that forum.

Yeah, that's a doozy. I wonder if it's just the reaction wheels in command pods that are nerfed or if it's all reaction wheels?

(emphasis added) This was raised this in a recent ESA video and the presenter asked Intercept about it - I think it was Matt Lowe, but I've been binging content and can't recall lol. Intercept's response: the engines in KSP 2 are meant to reflect general real-world technology, but are no longer meant to mirror specific engines or concept engines. Fuel types, ISP, gimballing control and other parameters are designed for a balanced game experience, and not to reflect capabilities of particular real-world engines. This decision helps fill in some gaps and reduce overlap in the original engine selections present in KSP 1. Another significant design change is that air-breathing jet engines now run off methane, while nuclear (thermal) engines use hydrogen as a propellant. This will impact the design of interplanetary space planes, as we will now need to carry a 3rd propellant type for high-ISP vacuum engines on SSTO's.

Pretty much any 3rd-party ballot.

I don't know, but I suspect it means something very different than in The Sims.

As much as we try to rise above bias and other prejudices, human psychology is real and we do need to account for it when designing this kind of stuff. I'm not arguing for/against the narrator voice, only noting that while it's important to try and take the high road, many players - almost certainly most - will not do the same, and their unconscious perception of the person behind the voice will influence how much trust they put in the narrative.

The engine designs *were* odd... I could be wrong here, but my understanding is that the conversion from metallic back to molecular is where all the energy release happens, and that energy is harnessed to direct an expanding propellant out via the nozzle, a lot like any thermo-nuclear engine. It sounded like the in-game implementation was just using high-density combustible hydrogen, but I could have misunderstood the dev description of the new fuel source. Even under the best conditions, the projected ISP of a metallic hydrogen engine would be in the 1200 range for real-world, and maybe 1700 with some kind of magical materials breakthrough that could withstand contact with the 6000K reaction. The new nuclear engines we saw in the ESA reveal were hitting 1200 ISP, so even though they have a crappy TWR , they're still looking great for interplanetary transfers.