Ahres

If I could pick my ideal combination of all those effects I'd go: Motion Blur: No Camerate Shake: Yes, where appropriate Bloom: No Heat Refraction: Yes Lens Flairs: Yes, but not JJ Abrams PS: Hope to see you in a feature video soon. Been awhile!

No one talks about it but the Tutorial Shader show & tell doesn't have a "Pre-Alpha Gameplay" anywhere on it. And that's the smoothest KSP gameplay explosion that I've ever seen. I think things are more polished than we know.

Maybe. Unless I've missed something, both the PC and console versions are releasing in 2022. But Intercept never did clarify that they were releasing at the same time now.

My head went here too @The Aziz. Still, whether kerbal or human, if you grew up in white sunlight I'd expect there to be a noticeable (probably not huge) difference when perceiving visible light from red dwarf. Now what about a kerbal that was born in that red dwarf system that didn't experience the light of any other star? Fascinating. It'd be similar to a fish not knowing what it means to be wet. Oh no... @Pthigrivi is an architect. Civil engineer here. Let me know when you're ready to set your building on the existing world.

And this would be satisfying enough to me. White sunlight would be disappointing however. It'd be interesting with sunlight skewed toward orange or even red. Everything would be different from what we see in the Kerbol system. You'd never see the system in true color except at night on the surface with white lights turned on. Even the moon that was briefly glimpsed over the horizon would be orange or red looking, not the white that we saw.

Will the lighting stay white even though the star is red? The sunlight should be red in this system shouldn't it? I recognize that, yes, this is in development. I'm commenting more for discussion. With the lack of comments on the subject, I get the sense that most players would have no problem with the sunlight being white even though it'd drive me crazy if it was.

It seems like there's been discussion elsewhere, but I don't remember if it's had its own thread before. This seems to be against the grain of the more popular (or just more voiced) opinion but, personally, I like the Kerbals front and center.

I've seen discussion here that there's a chance we get some KSP2 news during the Game Awards that begins tonight. I'm not the type to follow all the different gaming showcases and awards events that take place out there so I was curious what other forumers here knew about this particular one. Does some KSP2 news seem plausible at an awards show?

This is fantastic @Thundy. Just a couple observations I'd add are: The Episode 1.5 - Work From Home update fits really nicely into the gap between Episodes 1 & 2, although I'm guessing you're aware of that. I'd suggest that the Official Release Period is actually from April 1 to December 31 since they still say the game will be released in 2022. Also, I'm curious if there will be an Episode 6. The Feature Videos Teaser suggests we only have one more and it's about Colonies, but if you look at Episode 4's page on reddit, a KSP team member mentions future "videos". Plural. That's the closest I've seen to real proof that there could be more than one still coming.

Friday. Hype.

Fair enough. I appreciate the added perspective. For me it's a big detail, but I need to remember it may not be for others. I'm the type of player that likes to take a moment to stop and smell the roses. When using a lot of visual mods I'll happily take a few minutes to stop playing and take in the view, thereby noticing if the skybox is how I'd expect it to look if I were actually there.

I'm glad someone mentioned this. The DOE mod does skybox dimming when a bright celestial body is in view, which I think is what @PDCWolf has in mind - and if it's worth mentioning, I absolutely love it. It very much adds to the immersion for me - especially in low orbit around Kerbin when watching my space station or when landed on a body's surface. It's my opinion that it's more realistic than how KSP1 handles the skybox currently. It's more realistic in that it lines up more with space photography and eyewitness accounts from the last few decades. Think of some of the classic space photos of this and the 20th century. 'Earthrise' is a prime example. Folks in this thread keep mentioning it depends on where you're looking at your screen, but this isn't making sense to me. What you're seeing on screen is analogous to what you'd be seeing with your own eyes if you were floating there in space, peripheral vision included (like Apollo transcripts when reflecting on what was seen from the Moon's surface). This is how DOE handles it as well. I wanted to take a 'Kerbinrise' screenshot, and I couldn't do it without DOE. Even if you're looking at nothing but a starfield, if the sun is anywhere in your field of vision (or say in the corner of your screen) that starfield becomes really dim or even imperceptible, right? With DOE installed, if you're on the surface of the Mun you will or will not see the starfield depending on what's in view (on screen). If you're on the Mun's surface and it's daytime, you won't see the stars unless you're looking up so that the surface and Kerbol aren't on-screen. If it's nighttime, you'll see the stars no matter what. This makes sense to me, it's intuitive and it's what I'd expect if my own eyes were there. Now like Ohara also talks about in their quote, say you're out at Jool. Should the stars be more visible? I'd say yes, because you're so far away from Kerbol, but they should still be dimmer than if there were no Jool in view. Which actually raises another question that I've been thinking about bringing up as a KSP2 discussion topic. Should Jool (and other objects that are increasingly distant from their star) be visibly dimmer? Is this how it is IRL? All the pictures we see of Sol's planets make them appear as bright as Earth does, but I've always wondered if that's actually the case. Do they appear so bright just because of how big they are? Although, I suppose they look bright through a telescope.... I'm thinking out loud now. It seems like the movie Ad Astra makes Uranus or Neptune (I forget which it was now) look quite dim "in person". Which made sense to me because of how far from the Sun these objects are, but stock photos from NASA suggest otherwise. One more gripe about that Jool shot from KSP2, I don't understand why the bottom of Jool is still so illuminated unless it's a reflection from other moons. Still, it doesn't look good. The terminator doesn't seem as prominent as it should be either. Nor should Kerbol be that bright. Of course, all this is probably meaningless as it's still a develepment shot. If PDCWolf, @SOXBLOX, @shdwlrd, and anyone else interested, hasn't seen the DOE mod in action I'd highly recommend checking it out and then coming back with your thoughts on its behavior. I'm a huge fan of it, and really hope it is stock in KSP2. In my mind, it's right up there in importance with the other features of DOE, as well as Planetshine and Scatterer. And we already know we're getting Scatterer and Planetshine in game.

I haven't given it much thought while I'm sure some of the other KSP2 science speculation threads have, and I'm not sure @Pthigriviwas wanting to go this direction, but I'd love a science system where scientific observation is useful for future missions. An example would be something as simple as atmospheric height. I hope when I go to my first extrakerbolar planet I don't know a thing about it (except what can be gleaned by telescope), even how high the atmosphere reaches above the planet's surface. I want my science gathering to give me that information - I want exploration and discovery and reconnaissance to be way more involved. And then along with that I agree with the OP, let's get rid of the grindiness and give the planetary science some meaning. In KSP1 we can actually turn on the display of a thermometer and see what temperature the vessel is at, but who bothers to look? It doesn't do anything, it's not recorded anywhere so we can compare against other biomes (or regions, @Zhetaan), or other planets. So what's the solution? I don't know. Let's see what Pthigrivi has in mind.

Sorry, it seems to be a countdown. I probably shouldn't state it as fact. Truly, it's never been confirmed as such. But if you watch all the Feature Videos you'll see the KSP1 footage at the end shows the same vessel going further and further into it's flight.

Well the countdown on the computer screen using KSP1 footage took a huge jump forward, so that was cool. But then there's another Arecibo message, as found by u/RobotSquid_ on Reddit.

Easy MT, I don't think there's any cause for concern here. We know unless something changes that April 1st is the start of the launch window. And I don't think you can say May at the earliest based off of Feature Video release dates. They could start releasing one per month if they really wanted to. To get back to the OP, I'm still guessing we get the next episode this month or next month and then one more before release.

Do you have a source for this? I was under the impression we'd be getting one episode for each of the following: Next Gen. Tech The Kerbals Next Gen. Astronauts Celestial Bodies Colonies

We have to be getting really close to the next Feature Video. I'm hoping we get it this month, maybe even get it today.

@AtomicTech any predictions for today?!

I have an announcement to make... It... is... FRIDAAAAAAAAYYYY!!!

That’d be so cool! I like this idea. Maybe even have your own vessels be what’s used in the menu background? I’m excited to see what the menu screens look like in KSP2. I remember being in awe of KSP1 before even playing just because of the menu! I hope Intercept keeps it up for the sequel.

This is fascinating. I do not have, nor have ever had, a music folder. To give some more information, my installs are the full portable copies from the actual KSP webstore. I don't do update patches and I don't play it through Steam.

I've always wondered this and have never had any luck finding the music folder. Can you be more specific than KSP/Music?

It most certainly does not say exactly that. The excitement here is the fact that it said early next year, which has not been stated anywhere officially nor unofficially.

Or did they just add in "early" when they really don't know? Or did Nate only say "early" so that's all the writer said? We'll find out soon enough I suppose.