Chilkoot

I haven't given up hope of a SCANSat-like feature baked into this game. Nailing that polar orbit and watching the terrain/elevation/resource maps fill out is so satisfying - and immensely helpful! It really jives with the intuitive idea of sending a probe/relay sat and ground-imaging satellites before any kind of crewed mission to a new CB. All you need is a low, polar orbit and a lot of patience

It looks like - by design - most of the science awards in Tier 1 are supposed to be from missions. Missions are the game's way of forcing new players to learn the ropes by interacting with the game in a success-oriented way. The points/progress are the reward for engaging in that way. From what I see so far, actual field science collection doesn't ramp up until later in Tier 2. Most people in these forums are going to burn through Tier 1 in a few hours, b/c we already have a ton of experience with KSP. For new players, the early missions are designed to ease them in without the extra complexity of science popups and designing ships around collector parts. It's a cakewalk for us, but this is "easy first kills" stage of the game.

The problem is that the schtick carries over for 3 briefings, so it will take some work for them to retool - if they bother to modify it. Fortunately no voice work involved, so changing something like this is much easier than, say, quest dialogue in Starfield,

It's a scripted event, and an allusion to the flame wars b/w Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic over the Karman Line and their respective space tourism programmes.

So far, the missions are the better (more enjoyable) part of science gathering. The science experiments feel ... cluttered and bungling. All the overlapping windows and popups are pretty unmanageable - a step backwards in implementation in many ways. Overall, the update is very positive, though. There are some funny parts to the writing, even if it feels very JRPG - think Chrono Trigger dialogue. It's hard to argue with the performance improvements and heating just adds so much that's been missing since 0.1. This patch really is a huge move in the right direction.

Esp. with the release discount, I think we're going to see people (who give a damn, at least) switching their reviews from negative to positive. Bugs and performance are def. at playable levels now, and the simple gameplay loop is engaging. Some of the writing finally gets to shine through with the missions as well - the little jab at the Blue Origin/Virgin Galactic rivalry was fun. I was concerned that the tech tree would be more of the same, but it feels like choices are a little more consequential now and I caught myself wavering over where to strategically spend as the missions - and re-entry! - became more challenging.

Trying to keep my expectations tempered but... ONE MORE SLEEP!

Right - I thought the context was pretty clear, but the quote implies no *specific* kerbal (or role) is necessary, such as a scientist or engineer. Minimum crew appears to still be a thing.

T2 via PD isn't going to permit another missed Xmas buying cycle with this title. It will ship on the 19th, hell or high water. This game is already in the financial crapper. No matter how well recognized the IP is, senior mgt. is only going to extend so much rope.

From what we've heard, this is about as close as you're going to get to a career mode. The missions (previously contracts) will reward science points toward progression, and currency as it was in KSP 1 is essentially gone from the game. There will be other fungible resources that act as gating mechanisms - introduced later for colonies - but not a unified currency like we saw in KSP 1.

Not shown in the vid, but it could also require 6 minutes of very high drain, meaning stacks and stacks of batteries - or capacitors thanks to Adderly - adding weight and complexity to the build. This isn't that uncommon IRL - it's a problem with experiments on the ISS, adding mucho lift cost b/c of increased weight, and also a challenge for Rocket Lab with their electric pump system on the Rutherford engine which requires huge battery packs. Definitely a step in the right direction. I'm sure it will evolve over time to hit a really fun sweet spot for each science part. Not so sure about that one... the quote at 2:38: "We really want to focus on the difficulties of building and flying and not so much about [...] did I bring the right Kerbal in order to do this sort of thing". Sounds to me like that means *no* crew requirements for specific experiments, but we'll see soon enough!

(echoing) "Eteis!"

Fair enough. I also play with colonies, so I've constantly got resupply and resource movement things going on - otherwise there would be bodies lol. I still fail to see though how revert flight on/off has anything to do with life support, which is what took us down this road. Screw up dV/build: revert or accept the consequences. Screw up LS planning: revert or accept the consequences. What is the connection you're implying between life support and whether or not revert flight to VAB is enabled?

Remember that when running with life support, it's typical to have 5, 10 or even more crewed missions running concurrently, as time matters - a lot. Reverting a single flight is impactful for that flight, yes, but it doesn't negate the need to plan for an entirely new resource paradigm in general, any more than it negates the need to pack enough dV to make it to Moho and still lock in orbit. You're just doing more planning for each flight, and permitting revert (or not) at the save level is a separate consideration. Options are better, though developing those is always at the expense of other content. I want to see LS baked in, but it is likely better suited for it's own game mode ("survival") which incorporates the LS-type resources, parts, nodes, etc. I certainly don't agree with forcing it down everyone's throats, and it's probably too complex a thing to just have as a toggle somewhere, given how fundamentally integrated it needs to be from the beginning of each save.

*Optionally

Have to agree with this. I watch my kids play (no LS) without regard for warping or mission concurrency planning, etc., and it feels really watered-down. It flies in the face even of having unmanned parts - if Kerbals are immortal, why launch a probe ever? There's a magic to the challenge of prepping for a long-distance crewed mission... getting the recycling and food production right, habitation, etc. Cramming a crew of Kerbals in a single can for literally years feels like cheating. This is why we send uncrewed probes to Jupiter and Pluto, and why a crewed mission to Mars is such a big deal - with commensurate level of accomplishment for pulling it off! I know it's not for everyone, and agree that it must be optional and not require mods to remove it. But for those who have tried it, forcing us to use a 3rd-party addon (which may or may not have any kind of support, integration, etc.) is a real let down. Make it DLC if necessary, sure, but the game does feel empty without it.

It's definitely a concern - there are clear "sacred cows" (e.g. Kerbolar system, named characters) and Science may have fallen into some of the same ruts as Science and Career modes from KSP 1, with melded mechanics. From the dev stream, we know there are 3 paths to progression in the new mode: Instrument-based science collection (rehash): much like KSP 1 science mode, obviously retooled Contract-based science collection (rehash-y): presumably like Career contracts, but awarding science Discoverables (net new): Rare/unique features scattered through the system that grant science point rewards What appears to be missing is some sort of "milestone" system that opens up progression based on mandated successes not just grinds. This was hinted at in much earlier dev interviews as an exploration mode, but that seems to have been watered-down and slip-streamed in as Discoverables. Perhaps there was a fear of making progression too hard for some players. My take on this is that IG is trying to give people options for progression without introducing too many game modes. A lot of players want their sacred cows, and have been extremely vocal about it. When you're dealing with an IP that has a cult-level following, you're often damned if you do, damned if you don't - the first Star Wars sequels are a close analog. The same-y parts and tech tree don't imbue a lot of excitement, but there is still room for A New Hope. It's premature to flop into defeatism before we get some real hands-on time. It may be awesome!

USI Life Support is really great. It makes the game much harder, but it just feels so... right? Once you figure it out, you may never want to play without it.

I'm a huge fan of the USI-type life support - kind of "middle difficulty" compared to others, and deeply integrated with in-game resources, containers, production, etc. I would *love* to have a well-tuned, ingrained life support system, but it would ruin the game for a lot of players who prefer to play without. Modding it in will be disappointing, as it will never be perfectly honed and aligned with future development plans. As disappointing as it is for me personally, the dev's definitely made the right choice leaving general life support out. I will hold on to the dream of a "survival exploration" mode in the far future with individual/vessel LS needs. It really does add a whole new dimension to play, and if it's ever made available, I would gladly pony up for the feature as a DLC.

14 more sleeps!!

Even after the deep-dive, I'm pretty unconvinced. Progression in a game normally implies you've achieved some level of *success* in earlier missions/levels/etc., but that's not the case with this new Exploration mode. From what we heard in that dev interview, parts and advancements can be obtained by a grind without any particular milestones like "land on Mün and return to Kerbin". I call that a real missed design opportunity: the particular moment of climbing down a ladder and standing on Mün for the first time is not what triggers some reward in and of itself. The milestone accomplishments end up being secondary to the reward structure which is a pretty big flub.

Different cultures... I'd pronounce that one "Drayz", and if orbiting Jool, I'd be landing on "TEE-low". It's an imaginary world, so even if Nate drops a "so mote it be" edict on pronunciation, you're still pretty free to say it the way you want without offending the natives (don't get me started on Newfoundland). 100%. After seeing Mun with the Umlaute, "Mün", I'd always pronounced it with that north-Germanic half-ee-half-oo. Half of the fun of that body was the ambiguity and lack of clarity from the dev. Nate dictating pronunciations kind of killed Santa on that one.

Even with full exposure (no ship, no suit) on the surface of a habitable "Goldilocks zone" planet, it wouldn't be enough even to facilitate blood circulation. I mean there's a reason, say, elephants need to eat like 350lbs of vegetation per day even when browsing and not active. Photosynthesis just doesn't provide nearly enough energy for animals to survive, esp. endothermic ones.

Side note: For the first time since EA release, the "last 30 day" reviews have swung into positive territory, currently sitting at 67% positive. I tend to read through these reviews, and invariably the negative ones have been complaining about performance. It looks like the huge performance bump in 0.1.5 is pressing the right button with new players. Overall, the game is still sitting under 50% positive, but it will take time to push the meter up when there are already ~15k reviews on the system. Hopefully once Science is released, players will take the time to update their reviews if they are having a positive experience (fingers crossed).

Fair point. Seems to be very hardcore science in some areas, and somewhat physically impossible stuff in others. I get the need for patched conics just to make it work on desktop gaming hardware, but the 1/10th scale has always rubbed me the wrong way.