Ahres

I'm hoping we still get a snazzy Feature Video for Colonies. The production quality is so good.

I generally agree with the don't-judge-until-we-know-everything sentiment, so I don't fault you for saying this. The problem for me, I suppose, is that I'm concerned this is all we're going to get for Science mode. The 0.2 Science Milestone is released and now we're on to 0.3 and Colonies (which I'm so pumped for) with the stated exceptions of tuning the heating behavior and adding additional Science missions. There's nothing I'm aware of that indicates there will be any major content/gameplay additions to the Science element of the game from now on. So, in case that is true, we want to make sure the dev team is aware that there's a desire from at least some of the player-base for Science to be improved further before it's too late. Be careful to say things that you haven't fact-checked beforehand. You can check the UI/UX megathread for a reference.

I'm happy to have my mind changed, Mech, so don't read this like I'm trying to disagree with you. Instead read it like I'm trying to widen my perspective. I'm struggling to think it's as simple as you make it to be. In my opinion topo mapping, aero-capture data, resource scanning, etc. are both new gameplay elements and quality of life improvements. They're elements that can be ignored completely and yet you can still complete the mission you desire. But if you want a flat landing spot, or aero-breaking into orbit instead of full aero-capture and landing, or higher availability of a certain resource, you'd use these elements if anything for the quality of life of escaping the need to spam F5 and F9. Correct? I welcome any extra understanding for my own sake. Plus, there's the additional benefits of teaching the player some extra scientific topics along the way, motivating the player to try orbital maneuvers that they would otherwise not be inclined (that's an orbit joke) to try, and any other benefits that I might've mentioned before but have already forgotten about. On the other hand, if you say the features I listed above should be given at the onset of a new save I'd say that's fine. But the frontier spirit within me would be disappointed in the fact that I've got all this handy info gifted to me when I've never even visited that planet. I recognize that's an opinion or an individual emotional response, and not a universal one within the player base either, but it is called "Exploration" mode after all. Sadly, there just isn't much for exploring when you already know everything about the planet before you visit it.

I see where you're coming from, especially with the Pilot role of KSP1. I wonder where you draw the line between QoL and purpose of gameplay, however. If we take engines for example, one could say bigger engines are just QoL. I don't need them, I can just use a larger number of smaller engines. Is gathering science for the sake of getting bigger engines considered gatekeeping? I don't think you'd say that's the case. So if I'm saying I don't want aero-capture data available to me until I've sampled the atmosphere, I'd say that's reasonable. Agree with this completely. Again we're going to what you consider gatekeeping. You can't have those slope and height maps until you've gone through the rigamarole of sending a satellite out there to get it. You can't have detailed resource data until you've sampled the soil. You can't know atmospheric characteristics until you've pointed a telescope at it/performed a fly-by/landed a vessel/whatever else may yield that data. It seems like we're on the same page here. Or am I wrong?

I can't say I'm understanding fully. If you're worried about the tediousness of a new science save, you can just add extra science points at the start- or play sandbox, but it seems like you want some form of progression. And if you want to hurl a spaceplane through an atmosphere in a pillar of fire there wouldn't necessarily be anything stopping you. But for the sake of mission planning and science gameplay depth I'd appreciate being able to gather that data and make it useful. To reiterate, I'm not saying the game should withhold parts from you until you've performed a very specific action like sampling an atmosphere. To keep up with the example, I'm saying you shouldn't know the atmosphere's characteristics until you've sampled it. No in-atmo trajectory display*, no parachute planning*, no resource survey, etc. But if you have played the game before and want to just go for it, then by all means do so! *Assuming these features will be in the game someday. Admittedly, I haven't thought it through. Perhaps there's something obvious that I'm missing. Currently, we get Science Points for doing science actions. So would the list of things I just laid out also be purchased with Science Points? I suppose not right? We get resource overlays in KSP1 by using the orbital scanner, not by doing "experiments"... so perhaps the stuff I'm wanting is instead provided to the player once they've used the part that would yield that information? And those parts are unlocked using the science system that is now implemented? I don't necessarily have any problems with that. I suppose then my question to you, @regex, would be what your thoughts are on the resource overlay system in KSP1. You don't know where ore is concentrated until you've performed an orbital survey. I think that's a great mechanic. You still have to build and fly a rocket (core pillar of KSP) and on top of that you're incentivizing players to put a spacecraft into an orbit that they likely would rarely attempt (woo let's learn/do something new!).

I'm reviving this post from Pthigrivi because I really want to know if there's anyone out there that doesn't want science mode to be like this. Hilariously, his post is what most (or all?) players wanted For Science! to be and instead got ignored due to other forum users wanting to keep their arguments going. This is exactly what a science/exploration mode should be. We all know it. The KSP veteran players at Intercept know it. Yet we still got stuck with this. I really wish we knew why. We know why Nate and the team had wobbly rockets, even though a rare few were happy with that design choice. I'd like an explanation from the team about why we didn't get a much more fleshed out science mode. This was IG's chance to do KSP right. The dev team took science a little bit in the right direction with heavier parts, atmospheric and submersible parts, duration of operation, data and samples, etc. But if the game is about building and flying rockets, and an incorporated science mode is considered a must, then how did we not get a rocket-building game with a science mode that requires polar orbits for scanning or clipping through the atmosphere to gather some knowledge of a target environment before sending a full-fledged krewed lander? The game is absolutely much more fun to play in 0.2 but man... it feels like the opportunity was there, especially after all the threads that showed what we wanted as a player base, and we still didn't get it. Why? Are we leaving it to modders? Was onboarding a concern? Is a science mode like this still coming?

As some others said over on the Hype Train thread, I’m very impressed with the For Science! update. No more wobble. The missions actually make sense now. Performance continues to improve. Well done Nate, and well done Intercept Games!

I'm quite in-line with Mr. Space Cat himself, @Pthigrivi. Let's see... Life Support: Yes please. The game is about building and flying rockets, sure. But it's also about Kerbals, and I want mechanics for taking care of them and consequences when I don't. Flight Planner and Simulations: So obvious. There's even a Dev Diary from someone that talks about going from the desire of being an astronaut to gradually realizing the desire to be a Mission Controller. And that applies here. I'm fine with the ability to build something without checking what its capabilities are, but I'd like the opportunity to know ahead of time if the chutes will work, if the antennae have the range, if the solar panels generate enough power, if the batteries can provide power through nighttime, etc. Trajectories: flightpath through reentry would be so helpful. As would being able to set a maneuver right at the Ap or Pe (and knowing which orbit I'm clicking on! I'm with you @cocoscacao). Scanning & Mapping: I'm playing my first KSP1 playthrough with SCANSat and holy cow I'm never going back. Adds so much more to differing aspects of gameplay including, reasons for satellites, planning, exploring, and science. Kerbal Importance: Again, it's KERBAL Space Program, and we love these little guys and gals. I want to take care of them, and I want to have a gameplay reason for stationing them anywhere off-world. I'll lump the Habitation Mechanic with this- seems very related. Environments: I know we'll see strides as the game matures but I want it all. Highly varied terrain as seen from orbit all the way down to when boots are on the ground. Terrain in-game is so flat and bland compared to what we see from the Moon landings and Mars rovers. I want to explore, but it's all so similar- love me some Parallax 2. Different interactions/behaviors between ice, lava, rock, etc. More of what we expect from the hiring of Blackrack: scatterer, weather, cloud layers, etc. Get us some aurorae, and that planetshine we saw in early development too. Perhaps bootprints and tire tracks. Additionally, my pal @PDCWolf and I would still like to see stars washed out when a much brighter/larger object is on-screen (granted it seems to be highly controversial). EVA Construction: Not sure how bad we'll need this when we get the BAE, but until I know what its capable of, I'll maintain that it sure is fun to do spacewalks on orbit for upgrading a space station or assembling a rover when landed. 1.875 Parts: I use these all the time. Playing KSP2, it just feels like we're missing an entire category of parts that are much more aesthetically pleasing in certain builds. Telescopes: Part of my desire for exploration. I've unfortunately learned a lot about the forthcoming exoplanets. It sure would be fun to discover the ones I haven't heard of and work to reach them and learn more about them. Alas, I'm worried that this is a game mechanic that would come after release... when all the planets will already be known and visible. Robotics: It opens the door to so much creativity which is better for the community and its growth. Plus, it really hinders what a player can fit inside a fairing when it can't be unfolded/extended in space.

Mortoc, I know you preceded this with how you can't make any promises but man oh man does this have me pumped. The celestial bodies do indeed look INCREDIBLE from orbit. They make me excited to get down there and see it up close. As a big fan of having "boots on the ground" and seeing what's just over that next ridge, the current experience on the surface of the CB's is somewhat underwhelming. It's definitely better than KSP1, but the visual leap between KSP1-KSP2 from orbit is much bigger than the between KSP1-KSP2 on the ground.

Knowing that the Hype Train thread will soon be coming to a close, I thought it best to say a few words on this KSP2 Eve. I can't believe we're here, fellow Kerbonauts. While it's not how any of us envisioned it, it's still very exciting. Like @The Aziz, it may be awhile before I show up around the forums just so I can discover the Kerbolar system all by myself again just like I did all those years ago in KSP1. In the meantime, @Pthigrivi, you're the man. And that's quite a compliment coming from a Civil Engineer. Your insights and opinions have always been level-headed while still saying it like it is. Kudos. @Vl3d, I don't know how many eye-rolls you initiated from the rest of us around the forums but it was entertaining nonetheless. Nothing wrong with sharing your wishes and desires. @Minmus Taster, I expect a new avatar picture real soon. You've got a fancy new Minmus to savor. @Bej Kerman, we clashed frequently for a while there, but I suspect we're actually quite similar. Perhaps a multiplayer session someday down the road is in order to see if I'm right. @Nirgal, I bet I can guess where you're headed first when you get to play. I hope it's everything you hoped for, if not now, then in the coming updates. And of course, gratitude and apologies to all the Mods that guarded over the Train for its years-long trek. What a ride, am I right? There are some other Hype Train passengers I could ping before we disembark, but I'll call it good for now because our first stop is rapidly approaching: KSP2 0.1!

I'm excited for the revamped terrain! I love exploration and can't wait for there to be a higher degree of it in KSP2!

My open response letter to one Mr. @Nate Simpson, Creative Director at Intercept Games. Nate, I can't believe it's almost time. It's been quite the journey for the players, and even more so for the development team, I'm sure. It's funny, the dev team almost feels like friends to me after all the feature videos, dev diaries, and forum posts that we've seen from you, Shana, and others. We've gotten some insight on your personalities and interests and it's been fun to pick up on them. I wish I could say I speak on behalf of all players, in hopes that they share the same thoughts and sentiments that I do. Unfortunately, there will always be those who are both vocal and negative. While it can be constructive to have that feedback, I worry it can also slowly eat away at your sense of accomplishment and your pride. So I'm typing this out to you in hopes it's something that you and the team can hang your hat on as the first early access version becomes available to the world. What you and the team are attempting to accomplish is nothing short of impressive. Just ponder it... multiple solar systems at interstellar-scale distances right here in my office. Incredible. I've looked forward to this game ever since the announcement just those short years ago. The delays were a bummer, certainly. But as a true fan in your own right, I'm sure it was even harder on you. I honestly can't imagine the feeling of guilt and disappointment you've felt as the face of the team, knowing you had to tell us we had to wait longer. I like to think I'm someone who tries his darndest to understand others' perspectives, and so I apologize for any comments, etc. that the team has seen from the community that may have been taken personal or harder than any commenter might have realized. On a more positive note, let me just say that I am so pumped for the 24th. This is it. THE game. Kerbal Space Program 2. The sequel to my most favorite game ever made. I'm so excited for you and the team that you can finally share this with the world. I'm excited for Rafael's tutorials to be seen, that new players can pick up on some orbital mechanics without being intimidated. I'm excited for the parts! They look so good. Plus, the nostalgia will be prevalent getting to see some old parts now revamped. I'm most excited for the sense of exploration and discovery. The frontier spirit within me can't get enough of it. An in-person meeting seems unlikely, so this forum post is likely the closest I'll get to interacting with the team face-to-face. With that in mind, personally, this post seems underwhelming in conveying my understanding and my gratitude of the team. For that I apologize. There's so much more to say that likely will never be said. Regardless, let it be known to all at Intercept Games from myself, and the rest of us in the KSP Community: THANK YOU And Godspeed. -Matt/Ahres

Woohoo!! K-S-P! K-S-P! K-S-P!

We're supposed to be getting something tomorrow, according to folks around here that try to keep up with the Discord.

He said he even played multiplayer against Tim Dodd, The Everyday Astronaut! It was Dance Dance Revolution, however.

This doesn’t really acknowledge your post, but I’ll mention it in case you don’t know: even though orbit nodes relative to the ecliptic aren’t in the first game, you can use the orbit info menu in the lower left corner to see your orbit’s inclination relative to the ecliptic. Using this in conjunction with a maneuver node can get you a near-perfect equatorial orbit. Of course, in KSP2, some planets will have axial tilt which means the equatorial plane and the ecliptic wouldn’t be the same thus making things more difficult in that regard based off of what we have available in KSP1.

I like the clouds as well! (Just continuing the positive response before the cloud-sticklers get here.)

What is KSP Insiders? It's got its own logo and everything - with what looks like the ESA label associated with it.

I recall this as well.

I don't see anyone mentioning this interesting tweet from @ShadowZone. Think it's KSP2 related?

Wow. Now that's an explosion. That quite literally dwarves any explosion in KSP1.

See though, I keep pondering it because it's not a behavior that you can easily replicate on the surface of the Earth and test for yourself. My last sentence about the silhouette being darker is probably incorrect. I guess. Idk. The silhouette would be darker than its background if you have a nebula or the galactic disc behind it, but that nebula or disc (disk? Man... I'm losing all confidence in my intelligence haha) would have to be bright enough to be noticeable when you've got a brightly lit celestial object or nearby star in view anyway. The best way I can think of illustrating this would be if you found yourself in a certified Dark Sky location but there was cloud cover, i.e. an absolute dark environment and had a buddy standing 50 feet away shining a 1000 lumen spotlight at you, would you be able to see your buddy's phone screen that he's also holding and facing toward you but the brightness is turned all the way down? I honestly don't know the answer to that.

I must not be explaining this very well... because Joe's articles corroborate my thoughts, not disprove them. All these astronauts can see stars in space when they don't have a brightly lit side of a celestial body in view. In the screenshot I'm talking about, we have brightly lit sides of not one, but two celestial bodies in view so I'd expect to see only the brightest stars or no stars at all. The only reason we'd notice the bodies' silhouettes is because there's no stars there, there's a planet/moon in the way. The silhouette itself wouldn't be darker than the blackness of space.

Huh. I think I like the left more as well, honestly.