Bej Kerman

I don't know. I just know that the feasibility of Alcubierre drives is vastly overestimated sometimes.

Why? Alcubierre drives are as good as magic at the moment, relying on a made-up resource with "negative mass".

Then what's the problem with not using parachutes?

This, just wind make parachute landings of large parts impossible How so? Engineer around the problem. For instance, if you're landing on the bell of your engine, then don't -- use landing legs instead.

This here is the birth of a strawman argument.

This still disagrees with the dictionary. And no, I'm not particularly interested in whatever definition you picked out from a Wikipedia article.

If you had a few millennia to spare, I'm sure you could push a half useful amount of thrust out of a set of RTGs. I wouldn't bet on the devs bothering to add such a miniscule feature.

I mean, it wouldn’t be too hard. It’s standard practice in modeling. We're not talking about standard modeling, we're talking about making this work across hundreds of parts.

"Oh noes, now he's going to get free on a technicality, Your Honor, I swear I didn't mean that literally, you have to understand that.... Oh, wait a moment, we're not in a court room. Technically even just the settings menu or Minecraft sold on Steam as "Minecraft Settings menu simulator 2022" is a game by the Oxford definition if even one single person claims that he is having fun while using it. I guess there is no other possible meaning that you could extract fromy posts so I stand defeated. You won. No, you win. I should have seen that you obviously have more authority over what a game is than a literal dictionary. Again, there's no such thing as "so good that sandbox is not even needed anymore".

x2 You really don't see how "creative mode only Minecraft would not be a game" is flat out incorrect? It contradicts the dictionary. Your statements are incorrect, mate, simple as. That'll work for me, a PC player, but I fail to see how that'd work for people on consoles. Console players still exist by the way, as I subtly eluded to in the last sentence, it's worth thinking about them too.

More than debatable, a game without a creative mode is just a game, a game that only has a creative mode is not a game, it's merely a tech demo, if we want to be generous. Based on the definition of the word game that you made up and not the definition as told by Oxford? Definition 1 states "an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun". Minecraft fits into that definition nicely, even without survival mode. At this point, you're debating Oxford, not me.

Creative is still needed regardless of how good survival is. Creative lets you get straight to sculpting massive replica buildings, bypassing all the survival tosh that's become cliché in the past decade or two. Minecraft is incomplete without that option. You said it yourself, "I know there's people only playing Creative that are not interested in Survival". Just because you think Minecraft would be fine without creative does not mean that applies to everyone; your statement is less a statement and more an opinion. Some like survival and others like creative, ergo Minecraft is incomplete without either. Take one away and watch the number of players plummet. The original "statement" is simply wrong, Minecraft is not a complete game without Survival, and is especially incomplete without Creative. This should all apply to KSP 2. There's no such thing as a complete KSP game without sandbox.

seriously? improving? keep strutting everything? [snip] Im an actual engineer and let me tell you this is not how we do it. It's the way we do it in KSP ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's also not like you can build a home so well that you don't need a fridge in the first place. You can't. That's to say sandbox won't ever go unneeded, no matter how adventure mode works.

I want the physics and engineering challenges, not the boring logistical challenges. I don't care how Adventure mode is implemented, I'm not using it, simple as.

And? Why do you assume people only use sandbox because the other modes are badly designed?

That's a problem with how badly designed science is, not a merit of sandbox. Still going to use Sandbox regardless.

I can't believe that was almost a year ago. Man, I just want to play this game already. It'll be ready when it's ready.

I don't think a fear of messing up while in bad conditions should be reason for ridding the game of challenges like this. Reasons for not doing this should be technical, not difficulty related. Yes, but I would hate to have to "Time" launches, I just enjoy throwing rockets and flying them, having to change for a storm or something just seems like a bad idea, as @t_vsaid above, waether on other planets can do what it wants, that will add challenge, but when I'm just launching from kerbin, I don't want to have to scrub launches. What about the players that do enjoy launching in bad conditions? It's not like it'll destroy your rocket altogether, it would just serve as some kind of challenge to break the monotony. If you really can't launch in bad conditions, time warp for a few seconds - or practice with bad conditions, because the solution to a lack of skill is not avoiding challenges altogether.

It does, once an orbit.

Care to clarify? We can already accelerate time up to 100,000x in KSP 1 - focusing on a vessel going 458m/s below c (unlikely scenario) would cause the background to accelerate 500-600x. How is that any more "wild" than just accelerating time a smidge in KSP 1? I did some number crunching (which I failed to do before asserting things would break in the background, oops), and yeah, you can get to a very large fraction of c without your Lorentz factoring breaking 100,000, so from a gameplay perspective any alarms you set could pause the game in a fairly straightforward way and let you deal with it before returning to your relativistic ship (probably). But to reach a Lorentz factor of 100,000 your vessel would have to be going 99.999999995% of c, or just 15 millimeters/s below c. Reaching those speeds (or even even the c - 458m/s) by accelerating constantly in one direction at 1g would take years from the perspective of the traveler and decades or centuries from the perspective of an inertial observer. I won't comment on the technical feasibility of implementing a system that can handle time dilation. However, especially with cheats enabled (like infinite fuel), the devs wouldn't want to rule out the possibility of very high Lorentz factors, even though the vast majority of players would experience a more physically realistic max Lorentz factor on the order of 1.03 or less, like what whatsEJstandfor said. An added wrinkle to any implementation of relativistic physics that I don't think anyone has brought up before is length contraction; at high fractions of c that would be extremely jarring to players that have never visualized it before. In my limited experience it would also probably be more difficult to implement than a simple time dilation system since, after all, we already have time warp. I'm impressed with the level of detail you went into, kudos

Do you have a link for this?

It'd be interesting to see every stock planet get the overhaul treatment. Could be a separate, but almost identical, challenge

The flight model better surpass Ferram given how much work has already gone into the rest of the game. Aerodynamics should always be half the equation in a space sim.

I am a literal computer scientist and I can promise this is a harder problem than you think Ok, nice. It's still not even a problem in the first place though, so there's no reason to claim that it is. As I just said, KSP 1 already does arbitrary time warp for the transitions between warp factors. KSP 2 is its own game, I know, but KSP 2 will be coming from developers with more experience; this won't be a problem. It isn't a problem.