mcwaffles2003

Did you see the matt lowne vid I posted? His craft was fairly simple yet destroyed itself. Also, thank you it took a long while to build I'm hoping that multiplayer will have a mod check making sure everyone has the same mod pack to attend (similar to factorio) and it would probably be on the modders to tell people if their mods are MP appropriate. Though I will say, that craft I showed was 100% stock (Outside KJR).

Playing together doesn't necessitate career mode Apparently even if nobody is forced to be in the same time frame they wont do a campaign either. If you can find any video where a group has gotten to duna please show me because I've been looking for it and haven't found it Why does single time frame necessitate being in the same physics bubble? Also, have you read any of the thread beyond that post? Because apparently in DMP if an intermediary craft is touched by multiple players and then they sync it leaves 2 copies of the intermediary craft. I'd like to hear how this is solved in a non-convoluted manner. It feels to me that both manners would require sufficient coordination to manage a campaign but only one leads to a bunch of paradox problems with roundabout workarounds.

IF they come up with a response

You might not agree, but I addressed it How? All thats needed for contracts is a dependency check, I don't see how this adds a ridiculous amount of extra work nor does the player have to deal with anything, they just dont see the contracts appear that are non-viable. What complications were brought to the fold if plasma blackouts are left unchecked? If kerbal/parts g loading are left unchecked? If commnet is left unchecked? The designers don't need to compensate for these features beyond declaring dependencies check for optional systems. If anything when these features are disabled the game should run slightly faster as the game is no longer constantly checking these statuses. If theres an update to commnet why does having a disable commnet option complicate that? Its not using commnet anyways I use KJR, autostrut killed any of my larger craft. This thing wobbled to hell and snapped even if I cheated it directly into orbit (with the manual struts as well)

Good luck man. Just saying, I wouldn't order a burger from a place that wouldn't allow me to take off the mustard. [snip] Simply having a dividing border with the title "Advanced tweakables" should have been sufficient. I've listened to your argument and noted the concern over increase dev/debug time require due to the increased combinations in which the game can run. I find it doubtful (I have no true experience though) that literally every combination must be tested, but instead tweaking combinations of relevant features and receiving bug reports post release of an update followed by patching would seem sufficient. Also, I believe the fact that now there is an experienced and well financed dev team should be considered. I just think saying absolutely no options is a bit drastic. Some key features though should be on the table. Life support, for instance, is a very touchy subject in this community and I believe has been confirmed to exist in some degree in the game. Many want it and many others dont want to be forced into it, both for good reason. And not having base game life support has contributed to many incompatibilities between mods and has limited their abilities due to a lack of reference to the base game. Like how kerbalisms book keeping on resources interferes with near futures book keeping on electricity. That problem ultimately boils down to a lack of base game book keeping on unfocused crafts, which would be ultimately solved in a base life support system. At the end of the day though, if the life support system ends up half baked, I hope we are given the option to opt out until it is better addressed. If we find features half baked like I just mentioned, we as a community should hold the devs accountable, demanding the issues deserve some treatment and dissuade prospective customers from purchasing the game until addressed. Look at wolcen for instance... The released a buggy game, half baked, and its ratings are in shambles. Anyone looking to buy the game now is heavily dissuaded until its ratings finally improve. Same with no mans sky. On release it was a disaster and sales quickly dropped after launch and only have begun to recover after years of fixing, they were forced to make a better game by an angered community. I don't think the KSP 2 devs want that and, naively, I dont think the KSP 2 devs want it either. tl;dr - ridding of toggling options will not make the features better but force us to use them if they're bad

Do you know if only surface voxels are rendered or do sub surface voxels get rendered as well?

Pretty much in total agreement. Off Kerbin play could also be done by everybody launching there together in the same ship, separate ships, or possibly having KSC spawn locations on other planets. Theoretically multiple star system colonization could be possible but would be a decent hassle or require a lot of organization among the players. At that point though, I don't see much point in playing multiplayer if everyone is in completely different places without interacting with one another. Though, if making that kind of large colonization is the goal then everyone managing their own several projects for a common ultimate goal then a large amount of organization will probably exist anyways and large timewarps can be group planned.

Perhaps then craters could be made along with hills and pits, but caves are still simply out of the question. I don't disagree, though the speed of generation required while travelling at 1000+ m/s over such a large planet would be insane if the polygons were of any usefully small volume. Agreed

Yes, I have seen those videos, I've watched quite a few. By campaign I mean a playthrough similar to science/career mode where there are objectives to be accomplished. This could extend to sandbox as well if the group creates their own long term goal. But so far of the videos I have watched, I haven't seen the group go off to separate planets simultaneously then reconvene. It always ends up with people playing on or near Kerbin. I have a fair understanding of how DMP works and functions. This answers a question I had earlier, thank you for answering. I feel this is a bit game breaking and personally, I'd rather like to avoid physical craft spontaneously being created without being launched. I'm not a stickler for realism personally, as this is a game to be enjoyed and some creative license should be afforded to it, but IMO spontaneously making new craft goes a bit too far. I'm aware of FMRS, though I dont use it (stage recovery does fine enough for me), but I agree it would be enjoyable to have multiple pilots per craft. I do need to ask though, does FMRS work with DMP? I could see it working as timelines aren't synchronized anyways so traveling to the past shouldn't be a problem, but it looks like it requires making a separate game save state and backtracking to the point of staging apart the 2 seperate vessels then rejoining to the original save timeline while giving credit for the vehicle that has landed and been recovered then deleting it from the original. But if this is the case, combined with DMP, would it not also duplicate all other craft in the game while everyone else has been flying uninterrupted?

You're missing the point... astroneer planets are orders of magnitude smaller meaning orders of magnitude more polygons. The way planets are constructed in KSP simply doesnt allow for terrain deformation or multiple surface heights in one (x,y) location... This is also why there are no overhanging ledges/cliffs in the game either. In the end you have a trade off do you want a large planet with a high LOD from a large distance with smoothly operating physics or do you want studdery physics on a small deformable world with a low LOD. Please don't mistake me on this also, Saying astroneer is low LOD is not calling it ugly, its a pretty game, but every polygon surface is just 1 color and details dont hold at large distance, but this is hidden by the very close horizon

Having some sort of camera pan would be great, hopefuly when panning we could also have an indicator that shows us our center of rotation

Getting rid of optional content will not get rid of bugs or half baked content, only devs can do that. But turning off options will limit anyones ability to turn off any half baked content the devs make as well as force people to play the game in one way. KSP isn't dark souls and I do not believe a game that is meant to inspire creativity of play be so restrictive that one can't toggle options. Your argument suggests that if a good feature is built into the game that simply allowing it to be turned off would make it bad... that is flat out ridiculous. You may then suggest if it was a good feature almost no one would want to turn it off. I hope you never open up an icecream shop... because if you did and I walk in I suspect there would only be one flavor, and if I were to ask "where are the other flavors?" you would reply with "this is the best flavor, everyone will want it..." Not everyone likes chocolate ice cream, doesn't mean it is a bad flavor, just people have different tastes. When I was new I didn't want to play with kerbal G-limits, plasma black-outs, and every other feature that could be seen as activating a "hard mode".. I just wanted to play around and experience the game, get a feel for how to play it.If life support is brought into the game then making it optional is not what will make buggy or half-baked... crappy development will do that. But, if its optional and buggy/half baked, at least then I'm not forced into dealing with it. As far as optional features creating a "bad kind of complexity for players" I wish you had picked literally any other feature since autostrut blows and leads to kraken attacks. Imagine if we were all stuck with it with no ability to turn it off Funny this came out only 4 days ago. But seriously, is it that difficult to navigate an options menu? Because if it is, wow you are not ready to be learning orbital mechanics or basic Newtonian physics. But hey, maybe you're right and making something optional somehow inherently makes that something bad and we should all run off to mod land to fix it.... Well I hope someone develops a mod called "Options Menu" (probably linuxgurugamer will make it/sustain it). Then 99% of us can complain to private division about making the "Options Menu" mod a stock feature... But wait, if like 75%+ of us want a feature that is well built, by your logic it should be present in the base game. You should add a poll to this thread: So we can see how many people actually want it there/gone, and if less than 75% say yes I'll shut up

I feel like you only read my direct response to you and not the rest of my post... If you're arguing multiplayer is an inherently bad idea and you have no intention on using it, then why are you even bothering to argue this?

If that is the case, maybe it is, then why would we want to intentionally repeat the way it was constructed? Explain? How are LAN co-ops not multiplayer? I thought multiplayer was more than 1 player in the same game and that's it Campaign isn't the only mode for KSP Multiple people interacting with vessels is a bit more than: Look, I'm just saying the multiple stacked reference frames version of multiplayer has existed for 5-6 years and in those years I have found 0 footage of anyone doing the things that are prevented by having limited timewarping. Seriously, if anyone can find footage of multiple people in DMP carrying out a campaign I will back off as you will have shown proof that this works as intended. But until then I argue that it apparently hasn't solved the problem at hand. All I see so far is a million ways that if a campaign was actually attempted to be conducted in this manner then a whole lot of bugs derived from the most basic of B grade time travel movies would come up and any system put in place to reconcile this seems so convoluted it would make playing a chore. These problems wouldn't solely arise from griefing but simply just playing and not being 100% aware of all the actions of fellow players. This would make the game require a LOT of coordination. I hope I'm wrong if this is the path MP goes, genuinely, but it seems to me far simpler to just have everyone in the same reference frame. Maybe we wont launch to other planets or stars while others are sticking around the moon, but we could definitely have a fair bit of fun on Kerbin together, and there is plenty to be had there. If everyone went off to the same planet together that would work too. I hope multiplayer, however it ends up being executed, does so successfully. Because with it, and the mod community together, I hope some new ways to play the game emerge instead of just repeating the same one we have been playing solo. I saw DOTA emerge from Warcraft 3, and though it's not my cup of tea it definitely was a new game, vastly different from the one the original intended and gave rise to a now thriving community of its own. I can only imagine what kind of games could emerge with the raw open-endedness of KSP, and if the multiplayer is good it is where I intend to spend the lions share of my time playing the game.

When I try to add elevons to a wing... they dont default to joining at a right angle

Just gunna say.. Dark multiplayer has been out since 2014 and there are no campaign playthroughs to be found. So all the talk about using a DMP type system to make running a coop campaign work... it hasn't produced 1 uploaded playthrough in the past 5-6 years so far. So maybe campaigns just aren't what multiplayer is to be intended for?

Agreed So no 2 people can dock at the same station using different docking ports or to one another? I just feel this ends up as very convoluted and reduces p2p interaction which, in my opinion, is the point of having multiplayer. Is the run at minimum voted timewarp really that unappealing? Is it worth all this added abstraction? Just seems a lot simpler and less bug prone to me

Real plume super confirmed No nuclear explosions shown yet

Wat There wont be any and from what I understand about height maps with this game, there won't be, even in mods Can you really tell the difference that much? What if they say its realistic while changing nothing and you don't notice, good enough? Terraforming is out and will have the same problems as #2 when it comes to modding it in. Probably need voxel terrain meh not gunna happen I'd like those too but its not a deal breaker you'll get that one

It's not though, all it requires is the tiniest poke (any physical interaction) to put the space station in a different location. I think anyone who has parked a ship by a station with 0.0 m/s of difference in velocity and then warped ahead 3 days knows what I mean here. If the game is based on this kind of warp mechanic then I believe it will be a very delicate game.

I see it as a fair warning to the community. Also, keep in mind SQUAD is a marketing company first, not a game developer. Using them as a baseline or bar to surpass, to me, seems underwhelming. Factorio is still in "early access" and I believe they have a fair reputation for standing by their product

Agreed, and perhaps this is where a lot of the disagreement stems. I think some of us have different visions of what we hope to get out of multiplayer. There's a side where everyone is in the same reference frame constantly and ship-ship interaction is high vs a different reference frame where contact is minimized. In my view the object of multiplayer is to enhance interaction, hence my preference for same reference frame. I see it's faults but they come as inconveniences; where as with re-syncing de-synced reference frames I just see a lot of contradictions popping up that can be game breaking, meaning to avoid these contradictions contact between ships will be very complicated. One thing i would like to do is enjoy a space war, I realize the base game is not intended for this, but I still hope for it. Something akin to this: In that series they have to trade the save back and fourth and compete indirectly with AI. It would be fun to experience something like this but directly. I would also like to run a co-op campaign at some point as well.

You don't see the vast gap in what's possible between blowing up nukes behind a pusher plate and inventing a type of matter that doesn't even exist in reality?

you answered the 2nd but not the 1st

You in no way answered any of my concerns but have simply asserted they are not concerns. Please, convince me they aren't. What if A and B are unsynced and each researches a different tech? do they get both techs when they sync? Are the science points in the future used by people in the past? Does money function the same way? There are enough causal loops I can come up with here that the spiffing brit himself would dedicate his channel to solely KSP 2 content onward