Chilkoot

One more sleeps... CHOO CHOO!! ... but if it's delayed, I'm still staying on the train

Better yet, change this setting to "Lowest", and be pleasantly surprised!

I can only assume the same as well. It seems the old-timers are divided and the new players probably don't know/care, so there was no win/win situation for Intercept here. I've heard some of the old guard vehemtly defending the need to have the original system for a number of reasons. Whether there was more than emotion behind the carefully-worded veneer is irrelevant - these folks felt very strongly about maintaining the old planets, and that matters. From a purely business sense, it's also probably an easier job for Intercept to keep a lid on the disappointment from one group then relatively fervent anger from another.

Definitely one of the bigger concerns with the design decision to keep the same planetary system - visuals aside, it's a carbon copy. Offhand, I can't think of a single game where the immediate sequel opens in literally the same starter zone but with updated models. The transfer planner I'm using for KSP 2 was written in 2014. I realize there's new interplanetary content on the horizon, but the rehash has popped a lot of balloons for people, it seems.

Perfect example of overuse of whitespace at the expense of information flow and density. Our perception quickly categorizes the information on the right into two usable chunks. There's also the burning issue of "what's a CBL-375?". With the new colorized skins, batteries, reaction wheels, command modules and other parts aren't easily distinguished in the ship view, and their part designation in the Parts Manager isn't helpful unless you know the part number by heart.

This is such an onerous piece of software to maintain on any machine - perhaps the worst of any game I've seen as well. MS engineers are not stupid, but I have a hard time believing the install/update/maintain process could not be better. I had to reinstall the other day, and even on a synchronous gigabit line with a modern rig, it still needed to run overnight to install from scratch. At that point, just ship me 50 floppy disks through FedEx or something.

Pay attention, Kerbonauts! This is what happens when you install your command module upside-down (Edit: literally - one of the directional sensors was installed 180 degrees to spec, making the guidance system think it was pointing downward at launch).

Atmospheric drag is still in place - so parachutes *do* work, but they also get ripped off by the same effect if you're moving too fast when they are deployed. I believe it's just heating from atmo effects (friction) that's currently not enabled.

And also a readable font without insanity kerning. The UI art direction feels like a 90's WinAmp skin lol. EDIT: Also the VAB and Flight UI's feel like they are at war with each other. Flight UI has some microscopic elements hardly readable on a 27" monitor, while the VAB interface feels like it was made for a TV across the room (and controller-friendly, too). Design teams really need to have a coffee and come to some kind of agreement.

Sometimes, just engaging in a cultural event is part of the enjoyment. When my kids were very small, we would line up to buy the newest Harry Potter books at midnight, for example. They of course were asleep before we even got home, but that's not what it was about. Being a day-one fan - even if the game is pretty rough right now - is important in its own way for some people. The act of being in the moment and engaged in the discussions, hearing the feedback, looking at the oddball early designs... it's all part of the experience, along with feeling the pain of the bugs and performance problems with the current release. I don't have any regrets dropping the $50 for the first EA build, even if I wouldn't give it a positive review - it's not ready for general consumption yet, IMO. But if I frame it around the old adage, "Spend your money where you spend your time", it was definitely a good buy.

It's a bug with the collision detection at the front edge of the seat. You can nudge it up in the air above w/e it's mounted on, or push it far forward to the very edge (or even past the edge) of its parent piece. To see it in action, place one on a plate as a simple two-piece vessel. Nudge the seat around (esp. up) with the translate tool, and launch a few times to find the minimum separation you need from the parent piece.

Can't believe this is from 3 1/2 years ago. Man, so much has transpired between then and now.

Unfortunately, no. PS5/Xbox Series X&S only, and that is still a loooong way off (like 2025).

Possibly unpopular opinion, but I feel that Nate & Co. missed a real opportunity to start fresh with new lore and a new planetary system. For the life of me, I can't figure out why they recycled the original right down the last orbital inclination. I tend to think it was perhaps a pander. The original system could have been a location you discover later in the game with interstellar travel or something. Canon really becomes whatever the IP owner decides (ahem, Disney *cough*), so there was nothing really compelling Star Theory at the time to rebuild the original system for this release. As great as new Duna looks, it's still... Duna. Again.

I believe this is a bug with upper stages that have landing legs attached. I've been fighting this as well, and it doesn't seem like x-feed settings have any effect, sadly.

Fair point. IFR eyeball bounce was a problem with the KSP 1 instrument readout - no argument there.

For sure. In KSP 1 the option to move the navball to the edges was a huge boon as it occluded critical info, like you're saying. I don't like the navball in the centre, but I do (personally) prefer the great big, clear altimeter and atmospheric density gauges in a more "heads-up" position esp. for launches and landings.

I def. get the intent, but I find it's like that minimap in the top corner of an ARPG - you spend all your time staring at the minimap and not the game screen. I notice this happening quite a bit with the new UI. Best possible case is moveable elements and a moddable UI so people can (eventually) play the way they want.

Heh - you think it looks bad at 4k, try it at 1440p. They used integer scaling for many portions of the interface, which does *not* work with a pixel-art style lol. The "all in the corner" instruments were a poor decision as well, IMO - takes visual focus away from the ship/environment, and makes the whole game feel like an IFR rather than VFR experience, which really diminishes the wonder at breaking through the clouds on launch, or descending onto a new celestial body for the first time. Hopefully there are a lot of new options planned for the interface (I know some prefer the IFR experience - need options not forced changes). OK, it's hard to deny it's in a very rough state - maybe the worst EA I've seen yet on Steam. There's a significant patch planned for Thursday, so hopefully some of the worst problems you've encountered are addressed in that patch. So, yeah, certainly not for everyone, but there's still a lot of optimism for the path forward.

Yeah, even with a polar launch trajectory, the plane change is only a few degrees. Jool it is!

Not sure if this is in the right forum... I want to place a couple of comms relays in highly elliptical, polar orbits around Kerbol (Sun). Does anyone know the most efficient way to establish that orbit? Should I start with an equatorial orbit and burn from there like I want to capture Moho/Eve, then change inclination? Or should I launch directly into a polar orbit around Kerbin and then escape that SOI and Hohmann on over to Kerbol maintaining a high inclination right from launch? My gut's telling me to launch due north out of the gate but I'm wondering if there's a more efficient way to do it.

There are apparently "large struts" in the game files, but *not available for use in the public build. I guess we'll see what they do.

That's a beautiful rig, dude

Young Jedly riding the atmo to Eve's surface. Smooth touchdown! Now off to the mall with the new wheels.

Whoa there - let's not conflate the scientific method with forming a viewpoint based on layered tiers of speculation that can't be tested. That's how fringies like Graham Hancock pull the wool over people's eyes. Not suggesting you're being devious, but we need to be careful about what we believe and why, and not apply the same rules to very different ways of assessing certainty of knowledge. Think about the burden of proof in science (like your example) or the justice system. Even if "we weren't there", to have some kind of reasonable belief that development started afresh, we'd be looking for some kind of evidence in the form of documentation, access to the historical code repository, correspondence, etc., or even testimony from the people involved, which would be much weaker evidence. A modern archaeologist wouldn't jump to the conclusion development was started fresh given the current evidence, neither would a prosecutor file charges based on the strength of the evidence we have. There are two "real world" reasons we have to doubt that Intercept intended to throw out the code base from Star Theory, even though they may have eventually: The initially optimistic release window(s) communicated by Intercept shortly after they took over development of KSP 2 implied that development was continuing, not starting over. These initial dates were completely unrealistic for a from-scratch dev cycle. Were the developers/publishers hopelessly optimistic or even lying to save face? Possibly. Or they could have been relatively confident they could keep pushing forward with what they have. The fact that the code and creative assets produced by Star Theory under contract by PD would have legally been the property of PD/TT, and there was no investor guidance related to the write-off of that asset. There's more than enough cause for doubt that we should be taking the position that we presume or suspect that development was rebooted somewhere along the line, not that we are sure it did on day one at Intercept. Based on what we do know, this sounds like the the most probable situation. There were some off-handed remarks in interviews right around the initial announcement that alluded so *some* code or perhaps asset re-use from KSP 1. This could have been the case with the code transported from Star Theory to Intercept as well - there was every intent (and timeline projection) to continue along with development, but eventually reality settled in and that code was binned in favour of a rewrite for the reasons a lot of people have cited here. This is also supported to an extent by the significant, recurring delays and the state of the EA release several years into the process.